ACIT, Central Circle, 02 vs Mohak Jain

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal and cross objection are preferred by the assessee and revenue against the order dated 30.07.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) -23 Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No.: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079086929(1)arising out of the order dated 08.04.2025 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-2 for AY: 2018-19.

On hearing both sides we find that revenue challenges the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the additions which were made by the AO u/s 69B of the Act were deleted on the basis that the same was made relying exclusively the statement of Shri Mohak Jain director and promoter of Vintage Distillers Ltd. upon whom the search was conducted. Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed that except for the statement recorded u/s 134(2) there was no other incriminating evidence and reliance was accordingly placed on judicial decisions.

Department asserts that the statement have evidentiary value and admissible in evidence. However, ld. DR could not cite before us any decision which would show that in the absence of incriminating material relying the statement recorded u/s 132(4) alone and assessment u/s 153C can be completed. The evidentiary value to the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act is qua the material found in the search and the statement recorded u/s 132(4) on its own cannot be the incriminating material for concluding the jsearch assessments. Principles coming up from judicial decisions were righly relied by ld. CIT(A) and in the light of aforesaid we find no substance in the grounds of revenue.

The grounds raised in the Cross Objection are rendered academic and require no decision.

As a consequence of aforesaid the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed for statistical purposes.