HARIRAM JAGAJI CHAUDHARY ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee had purchased shops in the 'Platinum Mall' project and the Assessing Officer made additions to the income based on an Excel sheet and a statement from an employee of the developer alleging unaccounted cash payments. The assessee denied making any such cash payments.
Held
The Tribunal held that the additions were made solely on the basis of third-party digital material and statements without corroboration. It emphasized the denial of cross-examination to the assessee, which violates principles of natural justice, and noted that similar additions in identical cases were deleted by coordinate benches.
Key Issues
Whether additions to income based solely on uncorroborated third-party digital data and statements, without affording cross-examination to the assessee, are sustainable?
Sections Cited
132, 153C, 69B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax- 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)] for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22.
2 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that a search and are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was conducted in the case of M/s. Rubberwala Housing Infrastructure conducted in the case of M/s. Rubberwala Housing Infrastructure conducted in the case of M/s. Rubberwala Housing Infrastructure Limited (RHIL), its promoter and director, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a Limited (RHIL), its promoter and director, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a Limited (RHIL), its promoter and director, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of the Rubberwala Group, Shri Imran Ansari, who Rubberwala Group, Shri Imran Ansari, who Rubberwala Group, Shri Imran Ansari, who was entrusted with the work of sale and registration of shops in the was entrusted with the work of sale and registration of shops in the was entrusted with the work of sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project developed by RHIL. “Platinum Mall” project developed by RHIL.
2.1 RHIL had constructed a commercial complex known as RHIL had constructed a commercial complex known as RHIL had constructed a commercial complex known as “Platinum Mall”, wherein various shops were “Platinum Mall”, wherein various shops were sold to different sold to different purchasers, including the assessee. During the course of the search purchasers, including the assessee. During the course of the search purchasers, including the assessee. During the course of the search proceedings, certain digital material in the form of an Excel sheet proceedings, certain digital material in the form of an Excel sheet proceedings, certain digital material in the form of an Excel sheet was found and seized from the possession of Shri Imran Ansari. In was found and seized from the possession of Shri Imran Ansari. In was found and seized from the possession of Shri Imran Ansari. In his statement, he explained that the his statement, he explained that the consideration for sale of shops consideration for sale of shops in “Platinum Mall” comprised both accounted (cheque) and in “Platinum Mall” comprised both accounted (cheque) and in “Platinum Mall” comprised both accounted (cheque) and unaccounted (cash) components, and that the quantum of such unaccounted (cash) components, and that the quantum of such unaccounted (cash) components, and that the quantum of such cash component was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. cash component was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. cash component was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh.
2.2 The information so gathered during the course of The information so gathered during the course of search was The information so gathered during the course of subsequently disseminated to the Assessing Officers having subsequently disseminated to the Assessing Officers having subsequently disseminated to the Assessing Officers having jurisdiction over the respective purchasers of the shops, including jurisdiction over the respective purchasers of the shops, including jurisdiction over the respective purchasers of the shops, including the assessee herein, for appropriate action in accordance with law. the assessee herein, for appropriate action in accordance with law. the assessee herein, for appropriate action in accordance with law.
The assessee filed its original returns of inc The assessee filed its original returns of income for the ome for the relevant assessment years declaring the following incomes: for A.Y. relevant assessment years declaring the following incomes: for A.Y. relevant assessment years declaring the following incomes: for A.Y.
3 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
18 on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of ₹5,39,350/ 2017–18 on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of 5,39,350/-; for 19 on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of ₹ ₹4,07,970/-; A.Y. 2018–19 on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of for A.Y. 2019–20 on 24.12.2019 declaring tota 20 on 24.12.2019 declaring total income of l income of ₹4,13,150/-; and for A.Y. 2021 ; and for A.Y. 2021–22 on 17.12.2021 declaring total 22 on 17.12.2021 declaring total income of ₹10,63,210/- -.
3.1 Pursuant to the information pertaining to the assessee Pursuant to the information pertaining to the assessee Pursuant to the information pertaining to the assessee emanating from the search action conducted in the case of the emanating from the search action conducted in the case of the emanating from the search action conducted in the case of the Rubberwala Group, notices under sec Rubberwala Group, notices under section 153C of the Act were tion 153C of the Act were issued for A.Ys. 2017 issued for A.Ys. 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2021 20 and 2021–22. The information indicated that the assessee had purchased a shop in information indicated that the assessee had purchased a shop in information indicated that the assessee had purchased a shop in “Platinum Mall”, Girgaon, Mumbai, and had allegedly made cash “Platinum Mall”, Girgaon, Mumbai, and had allegedly made cash “Platinum Mall”, Girgaon, Mumbai, and had allegedly made cash payments aggregating to ₹17,50,700/- towards such purchase. The payments aggregating to such purchase. The year-wise break-up of the alleged cash component was stated as up of the alleged cash component was stated as up of the alleged cash component was stated as ₹2,00,000/- in A.Y. 2017 in A.Y. 2017–18, ₹9,34,900/- in A.Y. 2018 in A.Y. 2018–19, ₹3,78,300/- in A.Y. 2019 in A.Y. 2019–20 and ₹2,37,500/- in A.Y. 2021 in A.Y. 2021–22.
3.2 On the basis of the seized material, namely the Ex On the basis of the seized material, namely the Excel sheet On the basis of the seized material, namely the Ex and the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, it was alleged that the and the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, it was alleged that the and the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, it was alleged that the assessee had paid the aforesaid amount as unaccounted “on assessee had paid the aforesaid amount as unaccounted “on- assessee had paid the aforesaid amount as unaccounted “on money” in connection with the purchase of the shop, spread across money” in connection with the purchase of the shop, spread across money” in connection with the purchase of the shop, spread across the the the aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid assessment assessment assessment years. years. years. The The The assessee, assessee, assessee, however, however, however, categorically denied having made any such cash payments. egorically denied having made any such cash payments. egorically denied having made any such cash payments.
3.3 The Assessing Officer, placing primary reliance on the The Assessing Officer, placing primary reliance on the The Assessing Officer, placing primary reliance on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the entries contained in the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the entries contained in the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the entries contained in the
4 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
seized Excel sheet, proceeded to make additions of ₹2,00,000/ seized Excel sheet, proceeded to make additions of 2,00,000/- for A.Y. 2017–18, ₹9,34,900/ 9,34,900/- for A.Y. 2018–19, ₹3,78,300/ 3,78,300/- for A.Y. 2019–20 and ₹2,37,500/ 2,37,500/- for A.Y. 2021–22.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduce reproduce above.
We have heard rival submission of the parties and We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and relevant material on record. Before us ld. counsel of the assessee relevant material on record. Before us ld. counsel of the assessee relevant material on record. Before us ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that addition made in the case of other customers of the submitted that addition made in the case of other customers of the submitted that addition made in the case of other customers of the “Platinum Mall” on the basis of statement Shri. Imran Ansari and “Platinum Mall” on the basis of statement Shri. Imran Ansari and “Platinum Mall” on the basis of statement Shri. Imran Ansari and the excel sheet found fr the excel sheet found from him has been deleted by the C ed by the Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the series of decisions. The ld. counsel filed bench of the Tribunal in the series of decisions. The ld. counsel filed bench of the Tribunal in the series of decisions. The ld. counsel filed a list of such decision before a list of such decision before us as under:
(i) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "A" bench in case of Pravin K Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "A" bench in case of Pravin K Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "A" bench in case of Pravin K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742 Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742- Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742 4744/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 15th October 2025 5 order pronounced on 15th October 2025 5 order pronounced on 15th October 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021)
(ii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "C" bench in case of Akhraj P Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "C" bench in case of Akhraj P Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "C" bench in case of Akhraj P Chopra Chopra Chopra VS DCIT Central VS DCIT Central VS DCIT Central Circle Circle Circle 4(2), ITA No 5553 4(2), ITA No 5553- 4(2), ITA No 5553 5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), 5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), 5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5554-5557/MUM/ 5557/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th 2025 order pronounced on 10th November 2025 (AY 2019 November 2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-2021)
5 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
(iii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363 Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363- Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)
(iv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523 Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523- Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (v) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish K Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish K Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish K Seksaria VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5499 ksaria VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5499- ksaria VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5499 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)
(vi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Mishra Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Mishra Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Mishra Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & 5556/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 5 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 5 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020 20 & AY 2020-21)
(vii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & 6568/MUM/2025 (AY 2017 6568/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-20) AND
6 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5488 Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5488- 5489/MUM/2025 (AY 2018 5489/MUM/2025 (AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20) AND 20) AND Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017 No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025 20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025 20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025
(viii) Before Hon'ble ITA Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "A" bench in case of Arvind T Mumbai "A" bench in case of Arvind K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19) (ix) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat H Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat H Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1) Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1), ΓΓΑ Νο 5831 & , ΓΓΑ Νο 5831 & 5832/MUM/2025 order 5832/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 pronounced on 19th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19)
(x) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bhavesh H Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bhavesh H Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bhavesh H Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460 Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460- Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460 7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)
(xi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bipin F Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bipin F Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bipin F Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)
7 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
(xii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "F" b Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "F" bench in case of Jayantilal ench in case of Jayantilal Purohit Purohit Purohit VS VS VS DCIT DCIT DCIT Central Central Central Circle 4(2), ITA Circle 4(2), ITA Circle 4(2), ITA No 5682 No 5682- No 5682 5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)
(xiii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Kulsum Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Kulsum Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Kulsum Aaqib Aaqib Memon Memon VS VS DCIT DCIT Central Central Circle Circle 4(2), 4(2), ITA ITA No No 6450/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th January 2026 6450/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th January 2026 6450/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th January 2026 (AY 2021-22)
(xiv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "G" bench in case of Ganpat H Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "G" bench in case of Ganpat H Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "G" bench in case of Ganpat H Purohit Purohit Purohit VS VS VS DCIT DCIT DCIT Central Central Central Circle 4(2), ITA Circle 4(2), ITA Circle 4(2), ITA No 5827 No 5827- No 5827 5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21)
(xv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "G" bench in case of Gaurav Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "G" bench in case of Gaurav Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "G" bench in case of Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7199-7201/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 7201/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 7201/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21)
(xvi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "F" bench in case of Veena Mumbai "F" bench in case of Veena Hiralal Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5492 & Hiralal Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5492 & Hiralal Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5492 & 5493/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th February 2026 5493/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th February 2026 5493/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th February 2026 (AY 2018-19 & AY 2019 19 & AY 2019-20)
8 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
(xvii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Dhiraj Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Dhiraj Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Dhiraj Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6526/MUM/2025 4(2), ITA No 6526/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 04th February 2026 (AY 2019 order pronounced on 04th February 2026 (AY 2019-20) order pronounced on 04th February 2026 (AY 2019
(xviii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Suresh Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Suresh Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Suresh Sonaji Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 8859 & Sonaji Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 8859 & Sonaji Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 8859 & 8860/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 09th February 2026 8860/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 09th February 2026 8860/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 09th February 2026 (AY 2019-20)
The Relevant observation Relevant observation of the Coordinate bench of Tribunal of the Coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Arvi Shri Arvind K Purohit Vs DCIT in ITA No. ITA No. 4747 and 4746/M/2025 is reproduced as under is reproduced as under: “4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. materials on record. We find that only evidence which have been We find that only evidence which have been referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has been further explained by Shri Imran Ansari key e been further explained by Shri Imran Ansari key employee of the RHIL. No mployee of the RHIL. No other evidence has been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the other evidence has been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the other evidence has been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A) 4.1 The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop can be sustained solely on the basis of third can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital records and party digital records and statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross-examination. examination.
It is an undisputed position that the enti It is an undisputed position that the entire edifice of the impugned re edifice of the impugned addition rests on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third addition rests on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third addition rests on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the said entries. On the basis of said material and statement of key the said entries. On the basis of said material and statement of key the said entries. On the basis of said material and statement of key person, the said company RHIL accepted the fact of the on , the said company RHIL accepted the fact of the on-money received money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income but no in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income but no in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income but no material evidencing actual payment of cash material evidencing actual payment of cash—such as receipts, diaries, such as receipts, diaries, acknowledgments, or contemporaneous documents o acknowledgments, or contemporaneous documents or corroborative linking r corroborative linking to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been found from the to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been found from the to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been found from the
9 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
assessee. Even the alleged diary, repeatedly referred to in the statements, assessee. Even the alleged diary, repeatedly referred to in the statements, assessee. Even the alleged diary, repeatedly referred to in the statements, was never recovered either from the assessee or during the search of was never recovered either from the assessee or during the search of was never recovered either from the assessee or during the search of RHIL.
4.2 There There is is no no receipt, receipt, no no diary, diary, no no acknowledgement, acknowledgement, no no contemporaneous documents and no corroborative linking to the assessee contemporaneous documents and no corroborative linking to the assessee contemporaneous documents and no corroborative linking to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been referred by the lower authorities. It is to alleged cash payment has been referred by the lower authorities. It is to alleged cash payment has been referred by the lower authorities. It is further evident that despite a specific request, the assessee was den further evident that despite a specific request, the assessee was denied further evident that despite a specific request, the assessee was den the opportunity to cross the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari. The digital material examine Shri Imran Ansari. The digital material relied upon does not speak for itself and derives its evidentiary value relied upon does not speak for itself and derives its evidentiary value relied upon does not speak for itself and derives its evidentiary value entirely from the explanation furnished by the very person whose entirely from the explanation furnished by the very person whose entirely from the explanation furnished by the very person whose statement was relied upon. In such circums statement was relied upon. In such circumstances, denial of cross tances, denial of cross- examination causes manifest prejudice and strikes at the root of the examination causes manifest prejudice and strikes at the root of the examination causes manifest prejudice and strikes at the root of the principles of natural justice. principles of natural justice.
4.3 We find that identical issues arising out of the same search action We find that identical issues arising out of the same search action We find that identical issues arising out of the same search action on the Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided in on the Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided in favour of the on the Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided in assessees by various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein assessees by various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein assessees by various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein additions based solely on such uncorroborated third additions based solely on such uncorroborated third-party material and party material and statements were deleted. The Revenue has not been able to point out any statements were deleted. The Revenue has not been able to point out any statements were deleted. The Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature or bring on distinguishing feature or bring on record any fresh or independent material record any fresh or independent material to persuade us to take a different view. to persuade us to take a different view.
4.4 Identical addition made in the case of Bharat Solanki in ITA No. Identical addition made in the case of Bharat Solanki in ITA No. Identical addition made in the case of Bharat Solanki in ITA No. 6523/Mum/2025, the Co 6523/Mum/2025, the Co-ordinate Bench has deleted the addition ordinate Bench has deleted the addition observing as under:
“8.5 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against offering 8% of income on such declaration. In other words, they have offering 8% of income on such declaration. In other words, they have offering 8% of income on such declaration. In other words, they have generated huge amount of income in their hands generated huge amount of income in their hands at 33% of tax on the 8% at 33% of tax on the 8% income of the cash declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 income of the cash declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 income of the cash declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they ed that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they ed that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid such cash on submitted that the assessee has never paid such cash on-money and it might money and it might be their own money which they had brought i be their own money which they had brought into books in garb of cash on nto books in garb of cash on- money for tax benefit. money for tax benefit. 8.6 We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability u admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser pon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove the assessee’s investment or expenditure. ssee’s investment or expenditure.
10 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
8.7 The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the custom dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the customers dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the custom a small diary was being used to provide containing cash details received from a small diary was being used to provide containing cash details received from a small diary was being used to provide containing cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by Rubberwala Group having si Rubberwala Group having signature of the assessee has been found from the gnature of the assessee has been found from the premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search was submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search was submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search was conducted by the Department but no such document in the form conducted by the Department but no such document in the form of diary was of diary was found which could corroborate statement of Shri Imran Ansari. According to found which could corroborate statement of Shri Imran Ansari. According to found which could corroborate statement of Shri Imran Ansari. According to him, Shri Imran Ansari cooked up a story of cash on him, Shri Imran Ansari cooked up a story of cash on-money in his statement money in his statement for benefiting interest of their company. for benefiting interest of their company. 8.8 We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari hims We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari himself stated that cash elf stated that cash payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search action. This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the . This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the . This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the statement. 8.9 Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in en admittedly not furnished to the assessee in entirety. The assessee also tirety. The assessee also specifically sought cross specifically sought cross-examination of Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement examination of Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet maintained by the same person. maintained by the same person. 8.10 It is well settled that while income It is well settled that while income-tax proceedings are not governed tax proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted es of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted es of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of effective opportunity to rebut or cross effective opportunity to rebut or cross-examine strikes at the root of fairness of examine strikes at the root of fairness of the proceedings. 8.11 In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross- assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross examination of the person whose statement is relied up examination of the person whose statement is relied upon, the addition rests on, the addition rests on suspicion and presumption rather than proof. on suspicion and presumption rather than proof. 8.12 It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or 8.12 It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or 8.12 It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, where such material is sought to be us where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and ed adversely against an assessee and the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen Excel data, and pen-drive contents were supplied through the show drive contents were supplied through the show-cause notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on Andaman T (Appeals) on Andaman Timber Industries is, with respect, misconceived and imber Industries is, with respect, misconceived and internally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that internally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that internally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that cross-examination is necessary only where the third examination is necessary only where the third-party statement is the party statement is the “sole basis” of the addition. This reading is incorrec “sole basis” of the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, the t. In the present case, the Excel sheets and the pen Excel sheets and the pen-drive data have no independent evidentiary value drive data have no independent evidentiary value
11 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and th alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and the alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and th linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the very foundation of the addition. not collateral or incidental evidence but the very foundation of the addition. not collateral or incidental evidence but the very foundation of the addition. Much emphasis has b Much emphasis has been placed by the lower authorities on the proposition een placed by the lower authorities on the proposition that income-tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, it is equally settled that relaxation o However, it is equally settled that relaxation of evidentiary rules does not f evidentiary rules does not imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected 25 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected 25 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross necessarily includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. acts are disputed. 8.13 Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on the Rubberwala Group that it received on-money and offered the same to tax. money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. It is trite This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. It is trite This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. It is trite law that an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive evidence an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive evidence an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive evidence against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness or applicability of such admission t or applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged o his case, particularly when the alleged payment is denied and no independent corroboration exists. payment is denied and no independent corroboration exists. 8.14 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain primarily on the ground that the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain primarily on the ground that the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain primarily on the ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was erein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was erein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary reliance on third reliance on third-party material without cross-examination. Considerable examination. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged adm reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group ission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on that it received on-money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of Rajesh Jain rests be determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of Rajesh Jain rests be determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of Rajesh Jain rests squarely on two pillars: squarely on two pillars: 1. absence of corroborative material against the absence of corroborative material against the assessee, and assessee, and 2. denial of cross denial of cross-examination despite specific request. 8.15 Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be followed unless shown to be per incuriam, wh followed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the case here. ich is not the case here. 8.16 The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with cross down a blanket proposition dispensing with cross-examination. On the examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends on the nature of hey consistently hold that the requirement depends on the nature of hey consistently hold that the requirement depends on the nature of evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present case: • the assessee has the assessee has categorically denied having made any cash having made any cash payment; payment; • no cash, diary, or corroborative no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the document was found from the assessee; assessee; • the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, was never recovered; and was never recovered; and
12 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
• the entire edifice of the addition rests on third the entire edifice of the addition rests on third-party statements party statements and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. 8.17 In such circumstances, denial of cross such circumstances, denial of cross-examination causes manifest examination causes manifest prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. 8.18 We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged money” payments for purchase of shops in Platinum Mall Platinum Mall from the cash “on-money” payments for purchase of sho ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Praveen Rubberwala Group, the Co Rubberwala Group, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted (ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopra vs DCIT and ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopra vs DCIT and ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopra vs DCIT and Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide o Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide o 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance in this regard has been also seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance in this regard has been also seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance in this regard has been also placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) wherein the Coordinate 08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below: portion is being reproduced herein below: 10. I have considered rival submissions and perused I have considered rival submissions and perused I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition addition made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on–money in money in cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduc March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in ed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on wherein, the details of on– money paid by buyers / prospective money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on admitted receipt of on–money in cash towards sale of flats / money in cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on that the assessee had paid on– money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the state materials and full text of the statement recorded under section ment recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross her to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner
13 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
(Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assess the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse ing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him materials / documentary evidences available with him materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on indicating payment of on–money. However, on a perusal of the money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page–53 of the paper book, it is ver 53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the y much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learn to the assessee as per the directions of the learned to the assessee as per the directions of the learn Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on account of on–money payment in cash is without complying money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. Howeve making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of r, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima the assessee, which prima–facie appears to be correct, that the facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross opportunity to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and andani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil V decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil V Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. made cannot be sustained.
Even Even Even otherwise otherwise otherwise also, also, also, the the the addition addition addition made made made is is is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on of on– money is the information contained in the pen drive found money is the information contained in the pen drive found money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement during the search and seizure operation and the statement during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of t contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent he pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on that the assessee paid on–money in cash, no addition can be money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Ni of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference ranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to to to the the the assessee, assessee, assessee, therefore, in therefore, in therefore, in absence of absence of absence of any other any other any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on– corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on
14 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of t merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, he assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on factum of payment of on–money by the assessee. At best, they best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to and bring on record the relevant fact and material to and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on conclusively prove the payment of on–money by the assessee money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material on record to prove the payment of on material on record to prove the payment of on–money by the money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied paym has stoutly denied payment of on–money in cash. Notably, money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of concerning similar transaction with another concern of concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under: ACIT (supra) has held as under:– …….. 8.19 The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of search, and (ii) data contained in a search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive n Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied having paid assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied having paid assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied having paid any cash over and above the documented consideration. any cash over and above the documented consideration. 8.20 The Co-ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has held that such third held that such third-party statements and electronic records, uncorroborated party statements and electronic records, uncorroborated by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an credible evidence for sustaining an addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imra examine Shri Imran Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied upon. Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied upon. 8.21 It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not strictly apply to income strictly apply to income-tax proceedings, additions must nevertheless be tax proceedings, additions must nevertheless be founded on material which is reliable, founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and has a direct nexus with the cogent, and has a direct nexus with the assessee. Third-party statements, cannot be treated as conclusive unless party statements, cannot be treated as conclusive unless party statements, cannot be treated as conclusive unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take proof. 8.22 Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable opportunity must be opportunity must be granted to rebut or contradict the same. Where the granted to rebut or contradict the same. Where the addition rests substantially on a third addition rests substantially on a third-party statement, denial of cross party statement, denial of cross- examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’bl breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in e Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE(supra) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE(supra) has categorically held that failure to has categorically held that failure to grant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. grant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. 8.23 In the present case, it is undisputed that: In the present case, it is undisputed that:
15 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
• no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash paymen no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment was found no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash paymen from the assessee; from the assessee; • the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third party; • the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the assessee; and the assessee; and • the assessee was not provided copies of the complete stateme the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or the assessee was not provided copies of the complete stateme electronic data, nor was cross electronic data, nor was cross-examination permitted. 8.24 In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on-money”, the evidentiary money”, the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition unde threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of the r section 69 or 69C of the Act remains unmet. Act remains unmet. 8.25 During During During the the the hearing hearing hearing before before before us, us, us, the the the learned learned learned Departmental Departmental Departmental Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently adopted by the Co ted by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, such co absence of distinguishing features, such co-ordinate decisions be respectfully ordinate decisions be respectfully followed. 8.26 On a holistic c On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, onsideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of uncorroborated third uncorroborated third-party material and statements, without affording the party material and statements, without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebu assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in t the same, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be sustained in law. 8.27 Accordingly, the addition of Accordingly, the addition of �1,00,000/- made under section 69C of made under section 69C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is deleted.” the Act for the assessment year under consideration is deleted.” 4.5 It is well settled that while strict rules of evidence do not apply to t is well settled that while strict rules of evidence do not apply to t is well settled that while strict rules of evidence do not apply to income-tax proceedings, additions must nonetheless be founded on cogent, tax proceedings, additions must nonetheless be founded on cogent, tax proceedings, additions must nonetheless be founded on cogent, reliable material having a direct nexus with the assessee. Suspicion, reliable material having a direct nexus with the assessee. Suspicion, reliable material having a direct nexus with the assessee. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. An however strong, cannot substitute proof. An admission or disclosure made admission or disclosure made by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability on the purchaser in the by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability on the purchaser in the by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability on the purchaser in the absence of independent evidence establishing actual payment. absence of independent evidence establishing actual payment. absence of independent evidence establishing actual payment. 4.6 In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the consistent decisions of consistent decisions of the Coordinate Benches on identical facts, we hold the Coordinate Benches on identical facts, we hold that the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in that the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in that the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of the shop cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made purchase of the shop cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made purchase of the shop cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made for the assessment year 2017–18 is deleted.” for the assessment year 2017
The core issue for adjudication is whether the additions can be issue for adjudication is whether the additions can be issue for adjudication is whether the additions can be sustained solely on the basis of third sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements and digital party statements and digital records, without any independent corroborative evidence and records, without any independent corroborative evidence and records, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross- without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross examination. The entire foundation of the impugned additions rests ion. The entire foundation of the impugned additions rests ion. The entire foundation of the impugned additions rests
16 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
on two pieces of material:(i) an Excel sheet recovered from a third on two pieces of material:(i) an Excel sheet recovered from a third on two pieces of material:(i) an Excel sheet recovered from a third party; and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the party; and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the party; and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the entries therein. Admittedly, no incriminating material, such as entries therein. Admittedly, no incriminating material, such as cash entries therein. Admittedly, no incriminating material, such as receipts, receipts, receipts, diaries, diaries, diaries, confirmations, confirmations, confirmations, or or or any any any contemporaneous contemporaneous contemporaneous documents, has been found from the assessee. It is a settled documents, has been found from the assessee. It is a settled documents, has been found from the assessee. It is a settled principle that third-party material, by itself, cannot constitute party material, by itself, cannot constitute party material, by itself, cannot constitute conclusive evidence unless it is corroborated by independent conclusive evidence unless it is corroborated by independent conclusive evidence unless it is corroborated by independent material directly linking the assessee to the alleged transaction. At ial directly linking the assessee to the alleged transaction. At ial directly linking the assessee to the alleged transaction. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion; however, suspicion, best, such material may give rise to suspicion; however, suspicion, best, such material may give rise to suspicion; however, suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof.
7.1 Further, the evidentiary value of the Excel sheet is entirely 7.1 Further, the evidentiary value of the Excel sheet is entirely 7.1 Further, the evidentiary value of the Excel sheet is entirely dependent upon the statement of the person who prepared it. The nt upon the statement of the person who prepared it. The nt upon the statement of the person who prepared it. The document does not speak for itself. In such circumstances, denial of document does not speak for itself. In such circumstances, denial of document does not speak for itself. In such circumstances, denial of the opportunity to cross the opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the statement examine the maker of the statement causes serious prejudice and strikes at the root of the principles of causes serious prejudice and strikes at the root of the principles of causes serious prejudice and strikes at the root of the principles of natural justice.
7.2 It is undisputed that despite specific requests, the assessee It is undisputed that despite specific requests, the assessee It is undisputed that despite specific requests, the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran examine Shri Imran Ansari. The law is well settled that where an addition is founded on Ansari. The law is well settled that where an addition is founded on Ansari. The law is well settled that where an addition is founded on a third-party statement, denial of cross party statement, denial of cross-examination renders such mination renders such evidence unreliable and the resulting addition unsustainable. evidence unreliable and the resulting addition unsustainable. evidence unreliable and the resulting addition unsustainable.
7.3 Equally, an admission made by the seller or developer cannot, Equally, an admission made by the seller or developer cannot, Equally, an admission made by the seller or developer cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent
17 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
evidence establishing that the purch evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such aser actually made such payment. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the alleged payment. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the alleged payment. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the alleged investment; it cannot be discharged merely on the basis of investment; it cannot be discharged merely on the basis of investment; it cannot be discharged merely on the basis of generalized disclosures made by another party. generalized disclosures made by another party.
7.4 We further note that in a series of decisions mentioned above We further note that in a series of decisions mentioned above We further note that in a series of decisions mentioned above arising out of the very same search action on the Rubberwala arising out of the very same search action on the Rubberwala arising out of the very same search action on the Rubberwala Group, coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held Group, coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held Group, coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that additions based solely on such uncorroborated third that additions based solely on such uncorroborated third-party that additions based solely on such uncorroborated third material and statements are unsustainable in law. The Revenue has material and statements are unsustainable in law. The Revenue has material and statements are unsustainable in law. The Revenue has not brought on record any distinguishing feature or fresh material not brought on record any distinguishing feature or fresh material not brought on record any distinguishing feature or fresh material to warrant a different view. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires to warrant a different view. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires to warrant a different view. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires us to follow the consistent view already taken. On a cumulative us to follow the consistent view already taken. On a cumulative us to follow the consistent view already taken. On a cumulative consideration of the facts, it is evident that consideration of the facts, it is evident that(i) no in i) no incriminating material was found from the assessee; material was found from the assessee; (ii) the alleged evidence the alleged evidence emanates from a third party; emanates from a third party; (iii) there is no independent there is no independent corroboration; and (iv) (iv) principles of natural justice have been principles of natural justice have been violated by denial of cross violated by denial of cross-examination. In such circumst examination. In such circumstances, the evidentiary threshold required to sustain an addition under section evidentiary threshold required to sustain an addition under section evidentiary threshold required to sustain an addition under section 69/69C of the Act is not met. 69/69C of the Act is not met.
7.5 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions made on account of alleged unexplained cash payment for purchase made on account of alleged unexplained cash payment for purchase made on account of alleged unexplained cash payment for purchase of the shop are unsustainable in law. e unsustainable in law. Accordingly, t the addition made in the case of the assessee made in the case of the assessee for the A.Ys. 2017-18; 2018 18; 2018-19; 2019-20; and 2021-22 22 is here by deleted.
18 Hariram Jagji chaudhary Hariram Jagji ITA No. 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343 8340, 8341, 8342 & 8343/MUM/2025
In the result, all the four all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed. of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026 /2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/03/202 KRK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai
