Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Dimple Balar, Pali on 25 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR
BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
ITA No. 519/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-15)
A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Piyush Kumar Balar
Jodhpur. A-8, Veer Durga Dass Nagar,
Pali - 306401.
PAN No. AEMPB6394Q
ITA No. 520/Jodh/2025(Assessment Year 2013-14)
ITA No. 521/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-15)
A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Achal Chand Balar,
Jodhpur. A-8, Veer Durga Dass Nagar,
Pali - 306401.
PAN No. ABAPB8617M
ITA No. 522/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
ITA No. 523/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-15)
A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Dimple Balar,
Jodhpur. A-8, Veer Durga Dass Nagar,
Pali - 306401.
PAN No. ABAPB8617M
ITA No. 524/Jodh/2025
(Assessment Year 2013-14)
A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Minaxi Balar,
Jodhpur. A-8, Veer Durga Dass Nagar,
Pali - 306401.
PAN No. ADUPB2087R
ITA No. 525/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
ITA No. 526/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-15)
A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Abhishek Balar,
Jodhpur. A-8, Veer Durga Dass Nagar,
Pali - 306401.
PAN No. AATPB8811B
2
ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others
Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15
ITA No. 527/Jodh/2025
(Assessment Year 2013-14)
A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Saraswati Devi Balar,
Jodhpur. A-8, Veer Durga Dass Nagar,
Pali - 306401.
PAN No. ABAPB8616L
Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, CA
Revenue by Shri Anil Dhaka, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing 26.02.2026.
Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026.
ORDER
PER BENCH:
All the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur-5.
2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, on identical facts and hence they were heard together. We are therefore disposing of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. The ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025 for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 has been taken as a lead case for discussion in the case of Piyush Kumar Balar in ITA No. 518/Jodh2024 for A.Y. 2013-14; wherein the Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:
i. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee's claim of LTCG despite the admission of Shri Anuj Agarwal (one of the entry operators) 3 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 that he provided accommodation entries of bogus LTCG through companies like Unisys Software & Holdings Ltd., Radford Global Ltd. and Sunrise Asian Ltd. thereby disregarding evidentiary value of statement recorded under relevant provisions of the IT Act, 1961.
ii. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the decision in favour of the assessee disregarding the fact that during the course of search proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain reasons for investing in shares of little known company like Unisys Software & Holdings Ltd.
iii. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the decision in favour of the assessee disregarding the fact that incriminating material and information relating to claim of bogus LTCG by the assessee came to the fore, pursuant to statements of assessee being recorded during the course of search proceedings.
iv. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the binding precedent laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abhisar Build Well Pvt. Ltd.(2023) wherein it 4 was categorically held that assessments u/s 153A of the 1.T. Act, Rs. 0 1961 are intrinsically linked to search operation and requisition actions under section 132 and 132A and the legislative intent of section 153A is to bring to tax the undisclosed income unearthed during OR pursuant to such search OR requisition.
V. The appellant craves leave to add, amend OR withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.
4. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5 [CIT(A)], dated 13.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to 4 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent to the centralisation of cases, notice under section 153A was issued requiring the assessee to file returns for six preceding years. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) and in doing so, he treated the Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares as unexplained income. According to the Assessing Officer, the abnormal price rise in the scrip of Unisys Software was a clear case of penny stock accommodation entry, and therefore, the assessee had converted undisclosed income in the garb of exempt LTCG.
6. Being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended that the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 had already attained finality before the date of search, and therefore, in terms of section 153A read with judicial precedents, no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material found 5 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 during the course of search. It was argued that no document or evidence had been seized from the assessee which would suggest that the LTCG was non- genuine. The assessee also filed supporting evidences such as contract notes, demat account statements, broker confirmations, and bank records to demonstrate that the purchase and sale of shares were genuine transactions routed through recognized stock exchange and through proper banking channels. The findings of CIT(A) in the case of assessee Piyush Kumar Balar for A.Y. 2013-14, is as under:
4.5. Decision on Ground No. 1 to 2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration.
a. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had concluded that after going through the financial data and share price graph of the company, it was clear that the said company has witnessed an abnormal price rise in its shares without commensurate financial health and fundamentals, which leads to prove that the assessee was indulged in bogus and dubious share transactions and used a means to bring the undisclosed income in the garb of LTCG to increase his capital. The whole conclusion was made on the basis of the statement recorded of Shri Anuj Agarwal (one of the entry providers) in some earlier survey action in another case where he admitted to running companies which were engaged in providing accommodation entry through LTCG mode.
b. No incriminating documents or evidence in the form of any documents/papers/diary etc. were found during the search action at the appellant's premises which leads to any doubt about the false claim of LTCG. c. No evidence was found during the search action at the appellant's premises for any unrecorded transactions for receiving any cash in lieu of such false LTCG. d. No incriminating documents were found during the search action at the 6 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 appellant's premises for any transaction between Anuj Agarwal and the appellant. e. It is observed that the addition is neither based on any single loose paper found/seized during the course of search conducted in the case of the appellant which can be considered as incriminating, as is evident from the order of the AO. f. The AO in the remand report had mentioned that an amount of surrender was made on account of stock by their flagship concern Balar Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills. It is important to mention here that such additional income was duly disclosed and due taxes were paid in their respective company ROI. These facts are nowhere related to the case of the appellant so far as the issue under question relating to LTCG on shares.
g. The reference to the statement of Shri Anuj Agarwal was recorded on 31.03.2015 under a survey case in some different case. The search in the case of the appellant was on 17.12.2015. Thus, the statement of Anuj Agarwal was not recorded during the search of the appellant and the same cannot be considered as incriminating material.
h. As per record, no purchase or sale of any shares was through Anuj Agarwal. No incriminating material in the form of such evidence was found during the course of search at any premises of the appellant.
i. The transaction by the appellant was with those brokers who traded the shares and no incriminating material in any form of evidence was found during the course of search at any premises of the appellant which can generate any doubt on the genuineness of these transactions.
j. Further, the AO had also discussed the statements of the appellant and their family members. On perusal of these statements, it could be revealed that there is no incriminating material found during the search of the appellant which could suggest that the LTCG was not genuine. In these statements it was stated that whatever shares had been purchased or sold were duly recorded in regular books and such LTCG was shown in the regular ROI. These statements contain no such incriminating material found during the search of the appellant. During the search, the information of share purchase/sale and amount of LTCG were taken out from the books of accounts and not from any other documents which can be said as incriminating material found during the search of the appellant. k. The AO has made this addition on the basis of information available with him and not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the appellant.
7ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others
Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 l. As per the claim of the appellant, complete details of long-term capital gains have been given in the computation of income and all the transactions are fully verifiable from supporting documents, broker notes, bank accounts, and regular books of accounts. Documentary evidence with regard to the purchase of shares, broker details, and contract notes had already been submitted during assessment proceedings. The broker's note for sale of such shares submitted reveals details of trade date, settlement number, settlement date, order number, order time, trade number, trade time, security transacted, quantity of security, gross rate, brokerage, STT charges, and net amount payable/receivable. As regards the rate of shares, the same is driven by the market and the trade value of the shares on that particular date. The value of such shares can be easily verified even today from the trade date from the Stock Exchange. The trade value therefore cannot be validly disputed. The share brokers through whom these shares were purchased are duly registered with recognized stock exchanges and with SEBI. Their registration numbers are duly mentioned in the contract notes and bills issued by the respective brokers, copies whereof have been submitted during the course of assessment. Contract notes in support of the purchase of each lot of shares purchased by the assessee were duly furnished during the assessment stage. Payment and receipt of the share transactions are verifiable from the bank statements as the payment has been made by cheques and the sale consideration has also been received through cheques. All the shares purchased by the assessee are listed shares and were duly transferred to the Demat accounts of the assessee. The fact of Dematting of shares is also verifiable from the documentary evidence produced during assessment. The assessee had held all those shares for more than the required period for LTCG. This fact was proved by furnishing copies of balance sheets for the earlier years. The sale of shares in the year under consideration was also made through a registered share broker and is supported by contract notes and other documentary evidence of the contemporary period submitted during the assessment stage. Considering these facts, the appellant had discharged the primary onus and shifted the onus to the AO. During the course of the search action, no incriminating material was found from the premises of the appellant which can dispute such claim.
m. It is settled law that incriminating documents are mandatory to be found and seized for issuing notice under section 153A. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2023) 332 CTR (SC) 385 that in the case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search. As per the plain reading of section 153A, the assessments earlier made in respect of these years stand abated, i.e., shall stand 8 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 nullified and new proceedings afresh would be done under section 153A again. However, it is only the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under section 132 which shall stand abated and all the proceedings carried out by the AO in respect of those incomplete assessments/reassessments shall stand nullified in the midway itself. The unabated proceedings are the ones which have attained finality, i.e., either the assessment/reassessment order has been passed or the proceedings have become time-barred. Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer, while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A, could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is no incriminating evidence on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the AO, while passing an order under section 153A read with section 143(3), cannot disturb the assessment order.
n. The appellant had argued and contended that there is no incriminating material found during the search and the addition made by the A.O., in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, invoking the provisions of section 153A for the year under consideration is illegal. Further, the appellant had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6580/Del/2021 dated 24.04.2023.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded as under:
"For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material."
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under:
i) That in the case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A.9 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others
Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15
ii) All pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated.
iii) In case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the "total income" taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns.
iv) In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. o. Thus, now it is the settled position of law that in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act, the assessment can only be made based on incriminating material found/collected during the search from the premises of the assessee. The addition made by the A.O. is without there being any incriminating material found during the search and the addition has been made only based on information available with the AO during the assessment proceedings.
In search assessment, any undisclosed income which can ultimately be added is only to the extent of any unrecorded assets/material found or any incriminating document found representing undisclosed income earned. Further, the facts of the present case remain that there is no incriminating evidence related to the addition made by the AO found during the course of search, as it is manifest from the order of the AO.
The issue of assessment or reassessment under section 153A in respect of the assessment year which has already been completed and the issue of addition to the income that has already been assessed can be made only on the basis of incriminating material. Based on the binding nature of the judgment, it is held that the additions made by the AO while passing the assessment order under section 153A for the assessment year under appeal are not sustainable. p. The appellant had also submitted that in their family group cases, e.g., Praveen Balar (AY 2011-12), where addition had been made on similar facts of the LTCG issue, the same was deleted by my predecessor following the judgment of PCIT vs. 10 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 332 CTR (SC) 385.
q. In the case of Vipul Suresh Kumar Modi [TS-122-ITAT-2022 (Mum)], the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the CIT(A) order deleting the addition for alleged penny stock share sale as unexplained investment, holding that no addition can be made in case of unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. For AY 2012-13, pursuant to a search conducted on Indo Count Industries Limited and group concerns, the Revenue held that sale of shares of Global Capital Markets Ltd. (GCML) by the assessee was a penny stock transaction undertaken by the assessee in a pre-arranged manner in connivance with the operators to evade taxes and treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 47.63 lacs as unexplained investment and a further addition of Rs. 2.38 lacs, being 5% commission paid for obtaining accommodation entry, as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. ITAT noted that CIT(A) had returned a factual finding that the additions made by the Revenue were not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and the same remained uncontroverted. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court ruling wherein it was held that no addition can be made in respect of unabated assessments which have become final in the absence of any incriminating material found during search.
r. In the case of Dilip B. Jiwrajka [TS-997-ITAT-2022 (Mum)], the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT had upheld deletion of additions made under sections 68 and 69C in unabated as well as abated assessments conducted pursuant to a search operation. As regards abated assessments for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, ITAT held that the Revenue was unjustified in making additions based on unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements of entry operators/exit providers, particularly when SEBI had specifically exonerated the assessee of any wrongdoing or manipulation of share prices of these companies on the BSE.
For unabated assessments of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, ITAT held the additions to be unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material or information gathered during the course of search in relation to the alleged accommodation entries and share transactions.
Pursuant to search operations conducted on the assessee (individual), the Revenue relied on SEBI's interim order relating to transactions in shares of 7 scripts (Radford Global, Global Infratech, Shree Shaleen Textiles, Dhenu Buildcon Infra, Rander Corporation, Unisys Software & Holding, and Wagend Infra), held the transactions to be bogus and taxed the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credits under section 11 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 68 and also estimated unexplained expenditure by way of commission paid for such trades under section 69C.
ITAT elucidated the meaning of "incriminating" evidence and observed that additions made by the Revenue relying on the following information cannot be held to be incriminating:
(i) statement of the assessee's brother,
(ii) statement of other entry operators, and
(iii) SEBI interim report suspecting the assessee to be involved in manipulation of share prices.
ITAT noted that there was no reference to any document found or seized during the search to justify the additions made and observed that "it is clearly discernible that the additions were not based on any document/material/detail/asset found or unearthed in the course of search."
Likewise, for additions made in unabated AYs, ITAT opined that the assessee had discharged his initial burden to prove the genuineness of the long-term capital gain derived on sale of shares. Thereafter, the onus shifted to the AO, who had to verify the veracity of these documents and bring on record any infirmities if found. However, the Revenue did not find any defects in the documents produced by the assessee to substantiate the LTCG claimed. Accordingly, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A) order deleting the additions.
s. Thus, in this decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT, the scripts of Radford Global Ltd. and Unisys Software & Holding Ind. Ltd. were covered, which are the same in the present case of the appellant.
t. Considering the above discussion, the proceedings initiated under section 153A for the year under consideration without any basis of incriminating material are ab initio incorrect and the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. However, the AO is free to take other remedial action as per law. Thus, the ground of appeal on this issue is hereby allowed.
7. It is also seen that the CIT(A) had also referred to the earlier decision in the case of Praveen Balar in which under similar circumstances the addition had been deleted. The assessee also pointed that the appeal in the case of Praveen Balar for A.Y. 2011-12, as referred by the CIT(A) has also been decided 12 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 and the revenue appeal on this issue and on similar facts had been dismissed by the Tribunal.
8. The appellant relied upon the Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Praveen Balar & Others in ITA No. 287 to 291/Jodh/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12, in order dated 20.10.2025, where the following observation has been made.
7.1. After considering the submissions and examining the record, the CIT(A) held that no incriminating document had been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The addition was based merely on general suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the AO exceeded jurisdiction under section 153A in respect of a completed assessment.
8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
9. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip of ACI Infocom, without any financial basis, was itself sufficient to show that the transaction was not genuine. He contended that the assessee's claim of exempt LTCG was a colourable device. The DR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR
801) to argue that in tax matters the authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities. Just as the Apex Court disbelieved repeated horse race winnings in Sumati Dayal on the ground of 13 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 improbability, here also the sudden astronomical gain in the shares of a little-known company should be disregarded as being contrary to normal human conduct.
10. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, reiterated that the assessment year in question was not pending on the date of search and had already been completed. Therefore, in the absence of incriminating material, the AO had no power to disturb the concluded assessment. He further submitted that all transactions were fully verifiable from contract notes, demat statements and banking records. He relied on the judgments of Jai Steel (India) v. ACIT (259 CTR 281), CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR
573), and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (454 ITR 212).
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that during the course of search no document or material was found suggesting that the assessee's share transactions were non-genuine. The Assessing Officer has not relied upon any seized document but only on general reports of price rigging in penny stocks. This, in our view, cannot be equated with incriminating material found during search as envisaged under section 153A. 11.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) has categorically held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during search relating to the assessment year under consideration, no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments.
11.2. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla have categorically held that in respect of completed assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made on the basis of 14 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 incriminating material unearthed during search. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has recently reaffirmed this legal position. 11.3. As regards the reliance placed by the DR on the decision in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (supra), we find that the principle of human probability is certainly relevant in appropriate cases. However, the same cannot override the statutory requirement under section 153A that additions must be linked to incriminating material found in search. In the present case, since no such material was found, the application of Sumati Dayal does not assist the Revenue.
11.4. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. We find no infirmity in his order. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
9. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip of ACI Infocom, without any financial basis, was itself sufficient to show that the transaction was not genuine. He contended that the assessee's claim of exempt LTCG was a colourable device. The DR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) to argue that in tax matters the authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities. Just as the Apex Court disbelieved repeated horse race winnings in Sumati Dayal on the ground of improbability, here also, the sudden astronomical gain in the shares of a little known company should 15 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 be disregarded as being contrary to normal human conduct. However, he failed to rebut the contention of the Ld. AR or furnish any contrary judgement to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited relied by the appellant.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, the issue is apparently covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited reported in 454 ITR 2012 that in the absence of incriminating material, the AO had no power to disturb the concluded assessment. Further all transactions were fully verifiable from contract notes, demat statements and banking records the addition was rightly deleted.
11. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other appeals i.e ITA Nos. 519/Jodh/2025 of Piyush Kumar Balar, 520/Jodh/2025 and 521/Jodh/2025 in the case of Achal Chand Balar, ITA 522/Jodh/2025 and ITA 523/Jodh/2025 in the case of Dimple Balar, ITA No. 524/Jodh/2025 in the case of Minaxi Balar, ITA No. 525/Jodh/2025 and ITA NO. 526/Jodh/2025 in the case of Abhisek Balar and ITA No. 527/Jodh/2025 in the case of Saraswati Balar are exactly identical to the Appeal in ITA No. 289/Jodh/2023 and similar contentions raised therein may be considered, 16 ITA No. 518/Jodh/2025& Others Assessment years 2013-14& 2014-15 therefore, our findings and directions given in ITA No. 289/Jodh/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal also, which are accordingly dismissed.
12. In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 25/03/2026 in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 25/03/2026
Nimisha Sr. P.S.
True Copy
Copies to :
(1) The appellant.
(2) The respondent.
(3) CIT
(4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative
(6) Guard File
By Order