VIJAY KUMAR VYAS,J. - (1.) In these appeals since identical questions of law and facts are involved, they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal by the common order and judgment dated 26th November, 2016 has allowed the appeal of the assessee.
(3.) This court while admitting the appeals framed the following question of law:- 1. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24 / 2017 admitted on 24.01.2017 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions of Rs. 27,15,000/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment under section 69 without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective?" 2. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 27 / 2017 admitted on 24.01.2017 "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 35,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective?" 3. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 28 / 2017 admitted on 24.01.2017 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) in deleting the additions of Rs. 21,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective?" 4. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 29 / 2017 admitted on 24.01.2017 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the entire additions of Rs. 1,41,65,000/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective?";