MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT
MEMBER)
AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Assessment Year: 2017-18

and Assessment Year: 2018-19

and Assessment Year: 2019-20

Mr. Manish Kashiprasad
Seksaria,
Flat No. 1503, Quienscent,
Heights Off Link Road Opp
Mumbai, Malad West Dely S.O.
Mumbai-400064. PAN – AAEPS3973J

Vs.
DCIT,
Central
Circle
–
4(2),
Kautilya
Bhavan,
C-41-43,
Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan G
Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai-400051. Appellant

Respondent

Assessee by :

Shri Bharat Kumar
Revenue by :
Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing
:
28/10/2025
Date of pronouncement
:
23/12/2025

Per O. P. Ka

These three the common or Commissioner of for Assessment Y in dispute being together and disp sake of convenien
2. Firstly, we
2017-18. The gr reproduced as un
1
A of vi of up th w gr

2
2, pa ov ba co m is m

ORDER ant (A.M.) e appeals by the Assessee are d rder dated 09.08.2025 passe f Income Tax Appeals 52, [in sh
Year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 201
common in all three appeals, s posed of by way of a consolidat nce and avoid repetition of fact.
take up the appeal of the as rounds raised by the assessee nder:-
. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the .O. regarding the assessment order pas f the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order itiated by procedural lapses, and violates f natural justice, as the materials and sta pon in issuing notice u/s 153C were no he appellant, and no opportunity for cros was provided. The order ought to be qua rounds.
. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the a ,00,000/-w/s 69 as unexplained invest aid in cash towards the purchase of s ver and above the agreement value. T ad-in-law, arbitrary, and based onjectures, and unreliable evidence wit material to substantiate the alleged cash p s no corroborative evidence of actual made by the appellant.
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
2
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria directed against ed by the Ld.
hort Ld. CIT (A)]
19-20. The issue ame were heard ted order for the ssessee for A.Y.
e in appeal are e stand of the ssed u/s 153C is bad-in-law, s the principles atements relied ot furnished to ss examination ashed on these addition of Rs.
tment allegedly shop premises
The addition is on surmises, th no concrete payment. There cash payment

3
m of pu d op u

4
2, an pa lin ad
3. Consequent under section 13
2021 in relation t concern M/s R
(hereinafter “RHI other material all the said action, c of the Act were in 3.1 Briefly state filed its return o
29th August 201
Subsequently, a 132 of the Incom
Act”) was carried flagship concern
Ltd. (RHIL).Durin

. The authorities failed to appreciate th material on record proving that the appel f Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of the s urchase. Reliance solely on statements ocuments, without independent ve pportunity for rebuttal, renders nsustainable.
. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the a ,00,000/- in the assessment year 201
ny material or document conclusively ayment during that year. The absenc nkage to the relevant assessment ye ddition illegal and contrary to provisions t upon a search and seizure ope
32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
to the Rubberwala Group, inclu
Rubberwala Housing & Infra
IL”), and on the basis of the leged to have been recovered an consequential proceedings unde nstituted against the assessee.
ed, the facts of the case are th of income for the year under c
17, declaring a total income o search and seizure operation me-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref d out on the “Rubberwala” Grou n, M/s Rubberwala Housing &
ng the course of the said searc
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
3
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria hat there is no llant paid cash shop premises or third-party erification or the addition addition of Rs.
17-18, without demonstrating ce of date or ar makes the of law.
eration executed
1, on 17thMarch uding its flagship astructure Ltd.
documents and nd seized during er section 153C hat the assessee onsideration on of ₹10,81,920/-.
n under section ferred to as “the up, including its & Infrastructure h action, it was alleged on the ba had purchased
Girgaon, Mumba towards the acq alleged that the s over Assessment amounts of ₹
respectively.On t under section 15
case of the assess
4. During the c certain key per recorded, most n stated to be han
“Platinum Mall”.
stated to have be his purported st allegedly reflectin various purchase
5. Relying upo of third parties, notice to the asse
Imran Ansari tha asis of the material gathered th a shop in the “Platinum Ma ai, and had paid a sum of ₹12,6
quisition of the said property.
said cash payments were made t Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2,00,000/-,
₹6,58,600/- an he basis of the aforesaid mater
53C of the Act were thereafter see.
course of the search proceeding rsons connected with the tra notably that of Shri Imran Ansa ndling the sale and registration
Further, a pen drive of 16 G een recovered from his residenc tatement, was claimed to con ng details of cash components ers.
on the aforesaid material, includ the Assessing Officer issued essee. It was recorded in the st at he had been in the employ of ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
4
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria hat the assessee all” building at 64,050/- in cash
It was further by the assessee
2019-20 in the nd
₹4,05,450/- rial, proceedings initiated in the gs, statements of ansaction were ari, an employee of shops in the GB capacity was e, which, as per ntain Excel files s received from ding statements d a show-cause tatement of Shri the Rubberwala

Group since 20
registration of s stated that the components, a component, the determined by Sh promoter of the transactions wer sheets.The afore recovery, during
Ansari, of a 16 G data relating to disclosed that he
Ahmed, who, upo
Imran Ansari so updated.
6. The assesse any cash paymen the individuals
Importantly, the and other adver requested an opp whose deposition acceded to by th

010 and was responsible for shops in the “Platinum Mall”.
consideration for the shops cash component and a b e apportionment of which hri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CM
Rubberwala Group), and that re maintained by Shri Imran A esaid assertion was corrobo g the search at the residence
GB pen drive which he admitte the sale of shops in Platinum e would escort purchasers to on receiving cash, would therea that the diaries and the Excel r ee, however, categorically denie nts to any person and disclaime named in the third-part assessee sought production of rse material relied upon by th portunity for cross-examination ns were relied upon.These req he learned Assessing Officer. Re
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
5
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria r the sale and It was further comprised two banking-channel was allegedly
MD of RHIL and details of such Ansari in Excel orated by the of Shri Imran d contained the m Mall. He also one Shri Abrar after inform Shri records could be ed having made ed knowledge of ty statements.
f the statements he Revenue and n of the persons quests were not elying upon the search findings in the RHIL Grou unaccounted rec addition of ₹2,00
18 under sectio unexplained cas acquired by the a 6. Aggrieved b the matter in a Income-tax (Appe the alleged cash c
₹2,00,000/- in A ₹4,05,450/- in A sustained by the present appeals b
7. Before us, i
Assessee that th possession of th facie or otherwise the learned CIT conclusion notw the third-party s the assessee an n the case of the RHIL Group a up purportedly offered 8%
ceipts, the learned Assessing O
0,000/- to the assessee’s income on 69 of the Act, treating t sh investment towards the assessee.
by the assessment order, the a appeal before the learned Co eals), who confirmed the additio component of the shop purchas
A.Y. 2017-18, ₹6,58,600/- in A.Y
.Y. 2019-20. Still aggrieved by t learned CIT(A), the assessee h before this Tribunal.
it was vehemently submitted o he incriminating material reco he Rubberwala Group does no e, implicate the assessee. It was (A) erred in affirming the Ass withstanding the Revenue’s fail statements relied upon and w n opportunity for cross-examin
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
6
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria and the fact that of its overall
Officer made an e for A.Y. 2017- the amount as shop allegedly assessee carried ommissioner of ons in respect of se, amounting to Y. 2018-19, and the additions so as preferred the on behalf of the overed from the ot, either prima s contended that sessing Officer’s lure to produce ithout affording nation of those witnesses. Furth referenced canno assessee in law corroborative link addition under se addition would
Reliance was pla
Purohit v.
DC
4742/4743/474
8. The rival s record was per contentions adva settled principle made solely on material alleged assessee must be meaningful and persons whose s such confrontatio impugned additi stands vitiated.
8.1 In the pres namely, the pe her submitted was that th ot be treated as admissible evide w and, in the absence of k between such material and t ection 69 of the Act can be susta be founded on conjecture an ced upon the judgment in Prav
CIT,
Central
Circle,
Mum
4/Mum/2025).
ubmissions were heard and t rused. Substantial merit is anced on behalf of the assesse of law that where an addition the basis of a third-party st to belong to or relate to the e confronted with such materia effective opportunity to cros statements are relied upon. In on and opportunity for cross-ex on cannot be sustained and sent case, the alleged incrimi en-drive, Excel sheets and t
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
7
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria he material so ence against the any cogent or the assessee, no ained. Any such nd assumption.
vin Khetaramm mbai
(ITA
No.
the material on found in the ee. It is a well- is sought to be tatement or on e assessee, the l and afforded a ss-examine the the absence of xamination, the the assessment nating material the statements emanated exc documentary evi by the assessee records issued recovered from th party Excel sh substantive evide corroborated and cogent evidence.
payment by the were the pen-dri
Shri Tabrez Shai for the purpose law that suspicio proof; untested cannot be allowe under section 6
discharge the o independent and made any paym consideration. In Bench in Pravin held that where or material and t clusively from third-party idence evidencing payment of e (such as cash receipts, vou by or emanating from the he searched premises. Mere en heet, without more, cannot ence as such material must be d linked to the assessee by in No corroborative evidence of assessee has been placed on ive or the statements of Shri I ikh supplied to the assessee fo of cross-examination. It is a t on, however strong, cannot ta and uncorroborated third-pa ed to constitute the sole basis
69. The Revenue has accord onus cast upon it of prod d cogent material establishing th ment in cash over and above n line with these principles, n Khetaramm Purohit v. DC additions rest solely on third-p the assessee is not afforded co
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
8
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria premises.No any “on-money”
uchers or bank assessee) was ntries in a third- be treated as e authenticated, ndependent and an actual cash the record. Nor mran Ansari or or inspection or rite principle of ake the place of arty admissions for an addition dingly failed to ducing credible, hat the assessee e the recorded the Coordinate
CIT (supra) has party statements nfrontation and an opportunity unsustainable.:-
“8. We have perused the m the orders pa noticed that th fact that a sea
Rubberwala g
Housing & In Tabrez Shaikh
Ansari, who wa project of RH persons were search as well group confirm buyers of the payment of cas details of cas found, which recorded U/s framed and the 9. We noti coordinate ben its reliance. A case which is reproduced as 5.1. O covered by was also in along with residences o
Tabrez Shai group hand
RHIL were c for cross-examination, th e heard the arguments for both the pa material placed on record, judgements c ssed by the revenue authorities. Fro he assessment was completed u/s 153C arch and seizure action was conducted group. In search action, premises o frastructure Ltd (RHIL), its promoter h, and a key employee of Rubberwala as handling sale & registration of shop
HIL were covered. Among others, s recorded on oath onvarious dates d as post search proceedings. The emplo ed that the cash has been collected f shops. However, on the other hand, t sh. We noticed that during the search sh transactions with respect to Rubb was confirmed through statement of 132(4) of the Act and on this basis e same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A).
ced that Ld. CIT(A) although referred nch in case of Rajesh Jain on identical fter having gone through the basic fa mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its orde under:
n 17.03.2021, the residential premise of t way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act nitiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2
premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubber of various key persons including its promo ikh, and Shri Imran Ansari - a key emp dling sale & registration of shops in “Plati covered under section 132 of the Act. Amo
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
9
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria e addition is arties and have also cited before me and m the records, we
C on account of the d on 17.03.2021 on f M/s. Rubberwala r and director-Shri a group Shri Imran s in “Platinum Mall”
statement of these during the course of oyee of Rubberwala from the respective the assessee denied a pendrive with the berwala group was f Shri Imran Ansari s, 153C order was the decision of the l issue but misplace facts of Rajesh Jain er and the same is the assessee was also t, 1961. Search action
2021. In such action rwala group entities, oter and director Shri ployee of Rubberwala inum Mall” project of ong others, statement of these per well as post
5.2. D
(at 109, 2nd
Central - section 132
at his reside
Shri Imran
M/s. Rubbe
Imran Ansa entities sinc shops in Infrastructu
5.3. Sh said statem shops in th price structu categorically component decided by Rubberwala
Q. no. 16, s communicat the said sta sheets. Cor
Imran Ansa
Shri Imran A said pen dr also accepte of shops in prepared by the fact tha
Shri Imran A 5.4. It Imran Ansa said file she etc. are fou sale of shop in these ex that the she spread acro rsons were recorded on oath on various da t search proceedings.
uring the action on Rubberwala Group, am d Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg
400011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansar of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was a ence. Vide question no. 11 of the said state
Ansari was questioned about his roles a rwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL ari stated that he has been working with ce 2010 and inter-alia handling sale an “PlatinumMall”
Project of M/s.
Rubb re Ltd (RHIL).
hri Imran Ansari in his response to questio ment explained the complete procedure o he “Platinum Mall” project. While explaini ure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in re y revealed that the total price of the and banking channel component, and th
Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RH
Group). On probing further, Shri Imran A stated that these prices, as decided by Sh ted to him orally. He also revealed in resp tement that data related to shops is maint rroborating to the fact that data is being ri in excel sheet, during search proceeding
Ansari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved from rive is accepted by Shri Imran Ansari belo ed that this pen drive is containing data m
Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explain y him. Shri Imran Ansari’s this acceptance a at the said data was retrieved from the re
Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwa t was ascertained that the data is being ri in an excel file namely “consolidated 1
eets with different name viz “Master”, “Pay und to be maintained. It is also found out ps in the said project, comprehensive data xcel sheets, and in this regard, it is eet “Master” is so elaborate that the data ss 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has exp
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
10
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria ates during search as mong other, residence g, Agripada, Mumbai ri was covered under also recorded on oath ement dt. 17.03.2021, and responsibilities in L). In response, Shri
Rubberwala group of d registration of the berwala
Housing
&
on no. 13 & 14 of the of the of the sale of ng further about the esponse to Q. no. 15
shops contains cash hese components are HIL and Promoter of Ansari, in response to hri Tabrez Shaikh, are ponse to Q. no. 17 of tained by him in excel g maintained by Shri gs at the residence of m his possession. The onging to him and he maintained for the sale ned that this data is also corroborates with esidential premises of ala Group.
g maintained by Shri
2 3 balance”. In the yment” and “Cheque”
that in respect of the a is being maintained important to mention a in the said sheet is plained all 98 columns of “Master”
Imran Ansar data and th purpose. Sh explained in column B, a shops have Imran Ansa
Shaikh, Dir during post admission m said excel to statement.
mentioned a Jain.
5.5. Re
Shri Imran updated on cheque (or b stated to be are also sta response th search estab
ShriAbrar A who update place furthe also importa follow up aforementio the cash com own numbe the above m
Shri Rajesh
10. We also in the case of 3954,3952,395
reproduced he
12. Th the relief gr the shops p sheet and such explanation of each and e ri further support the fact that the he was herefore could explain all these columns hri Imran Ansari in response to Question no n detail the meaning and relevant of each against the name of ‘Raj Bhai Jain’/‘Raj B been entered. Further, these 27 shops ri) to be booked by the assessee only. Als rector and Promoter of the RHIL, while search proceedings on 19.08.2021 catego made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confi o be true byconfirming facts stated by Shr
It is also important to note here that above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 sho egarding the frequency of updating the Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, state the same day when a payment is receiv banking channel). The column A to AR of th e updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets ated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is r hat he takes the parties to ShriAbrar Ahm blished to be a person handing cash for the hmed, after receiving the cash confirms e the diariesand the said excel file. Such d er upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran ant to note here that Shri Imran Ansari a with the buyers on the numbers sav oned, the number, for the shops for which t mponent, is mentioned as 9892196071, w er. Thus, it makes clear that for the cash mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari us h Jain/assessee only…………………
noticed that the decision of the Coordi f Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 3842& 384
51 and3950/Mum/2023 on the rein below:
he appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020
ranted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash purchased by others cannot be assessed
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
11
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria every column by Shri s maintaining the said s with relevance and o. 22, 23 and 24, has and every column. In haiJain(I.S)’, total 27
are stated (by Shri so, ShriTabrez Ahmed deposing statement orically confirmed the irmed the data of the ri Imran Ansari in his t the phone number ops, is of Shri Rajesh said excel file/sheet, ed that this sheet is ved either in cash or he sheet “Master” are s of the said excel file revealed in the above med (who during the e Rubberwala Group).
to Shri Imran Ansari detailed mechanism in Ansari on oath. It is also used to call and ved in his data. As the assessee has paid which is the assessee’s payment part, for all sed to follow up with inate Bench of ITAT
41 & ITA No.
identical facts is 0-21 is with regard to payments relating to in the hands of the assessee. T identical iss also. Follow issue.
13. In payment of CIT(A) is b purchased a group. Durin documents were found.
has been co payment of case of Rub in AY 2020-2
15. The ld A party statem per the dep were given acknowledge such diary conducted i stands dispr party statem same. The A despite bei various cas deleted. 16. AO has mad third party a third party.
statement s such payme examination assessee. U addition of take suppor in the ca
No.3265/Mu decided as u

The decision rendered by us in AY 2018-19
ue on merits in the earlier paragraphs wo wing the same, we affirm the order passed n the appeal filed by the assessee, the ad
Rs.18,64,200/- in respect of purchase of s being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier th a shop in the commercial premises deve ng the course of search conducted in their containing details of cash collected on s
. The employee of Rubberwala group con ollected from the buyers of shops. However f cash. However, the AO relied upon the m berwala group and accordingly made addit
21. The LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same.
A.R submitted that the addition was made ment and documents found from the premi osition made by the employee of Rubberw n a diary, in which, the details of ed. The Ld A.R submitted the search offic with the assessee during the course in his hands. Hence the statement so giv roved. He submitted that the AO has sim ment without bringing any independent ma
AO also did not provide the opportunity o ing asked by the assessee. Accordingly, b se laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this . We heard Ld D.R and perused the record de the addition on the basis of evidence fou and also on the basis of deposition made by No corroborative material was brought on so given, which is mandatory when the ent. Further, the AO also did not provide n to the assessee, even after the said requ
Under these set of facts, we are of the vie
Rs.18,64,200/- cannot be sustained. In rt from the decision rendered by SMC benc ase of Naren
Premchang
Nagda vs um/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an under:-
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
12
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria
9 and 2019-20 on an uld apply in this year d by LdCIT(A) on this dition of alleged cash shop confirmed by Ld hat the assessee had loped by Rubberwala r hands, incriminating sale of various shops nfirmed that the cash r, the assessee denied materials found in the tion of Rs.18,64,200/-
.
e on the basis of third ises of third party. As wala group, the buyers cash received were cials did not find any of search operation ven by the employee mply relied upon third aterial to support the of cross examination by placing reliance on s addition should be d. We notice that the und in the premises of y the employee of the record to support the assessee denies any opportunity of cross uest was made by the ew that the impugned this regard, we may ch of Mumbai Tribunal s.
ITO
(IT Appeal n identical issue was 17. We als examine the had placed r of Andama
(2015)(62 t examine is a violation of said decisio present case
11. From th the same facts and since the of Rajesh Jai application on assessee categ above the agr with any of th group and ev where any na account of pay
12. Although assessee had confronted, n confronted to t confronted.
13. Therefor pendrive etc., have been cor was not provid notice u/s153
primary and fu
14. As far a same was not as per order o the case of t evidence to e authenticated so notice that the AO did not provide e persons from Rubberwala group, on whos reliance upon. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court an Timber Industries vs. Commissioner taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing a serious flaw and it will make the order nu principle of natural justice. We are of the on of Hon‟ble Supreme Court shall apply e.
he above we find that the Coordinate s and rightly decided the issue in favo facts of the present case are also iden in’s (supra) case, therefore the sai n the facts of the present case as w gorically denied having paid any amou reement value. The AO has neither c he material found during the search ven noevidence or seized document h ame of the assessee has been expli ying any ‘on-money’.
h it has been claimed in the order of a paid on money, but again no such s either the seized material /docume the assessee nor the copy of statement re, in our view, the information if cannot be considered as ‘credible evi rroborated with any other evidence.
ded with the adverse material, if any 3 of the Act, was issued, in our vie undamental requirement of natural justi as the information claimed in pendrive found from the possession of the asse f assessment, during the search and s third party therefore, in the absenc establish that the contents of pendriv to the extent assessee paid ‘on- m
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
13
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria opportunity to cross se statements the AO t has held in the case r of Central Excise opportunity to cross ullity, as it amounts to e view that the above y to the facts of the bench has consider our of the assessee ntical with the facts d decision will be well. Moreover, the nt in cash over and confronted assessee h on Rubberwala has been referred to icitly mentioned on assessment that the statement has been nts /pendrive was t of Key person was any found in the idence’, unless they
Since the assessee y, based on which ew, it hampers the tice.
e is concerned, the essee but was found seizure conducted in ce of corroborative ve are correct and money’ in cash, no addition can reassessment recorded in th such a scen
Reliance in this Dashrath Jhan
08) wherein t favour of asse below:
10. I record. Und account of a lies in a se
Group and r
Officer has evidence av the assesse notice dated in the asses the form of employees o
132(4) of th the Group, buyers to H statement r
Shri Niranja towards sale of evidences demonstrate the flat. It i the assesse adverse ma
132(4) of th requested t
Niranjan Hir
Apparently,
Assessing O the first app dated 18th the assesse him indicatin be made and even otherwise proceedings the veracity and relia he pendrive was not checked or tes nariono addition is warranted in the s regard has been placed on the decisio nglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assess the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had de essee and the relevant portion is being have considered rival submissions and disputedly, the genesis of the addition m alleged payment of on–money in cash towa earch and seizure operation conducted in related persons. Though, in the assessmen not discussed in detail the nature of in vailable on record to indicate payment of o e to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, d 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by ssment order, it appears that the incrimina f pen drive found and seized from the res of Hiranandani Group and a statement re he Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Dire wherein, the details of on– money paid by Hiranandani Group concerns are mentione recorded under section 132(4) of the Act an Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of e of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that exc s the Assessing Officer had no other evide es that the assessee had paid on–money in is further relevant to observe, from the as ee has requested the Assessing Officer to aterials and full text of the statement rec he Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. Th the Assessing Officer for allowing her to ranandani and other parties whose stateme this request of the assessee was no Officer. When the assessee took up the a pellate authority, the learned Commission
July 2016, had clearly directed the Assess e all adverse materials / documentary evi ng payment of on–money. However, on a p
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
14
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria during the entire ability of the data sted. Therefore, in case of assessee.
on in case of Heena sment Year : 2007–
ecided the issue in g reproduced herein perused material on made of 42 lakh on ards purchase of a flat case of Hiranandani nt order the Assessing ncriminating material/
on–money in cash by from the show cause the Assessing Officer ating materials are in sidence of one of the ecorded under section ector and Promoter of y buyers / prospective d and further, in the on 14th March 2014, f on–money in cash cept these two pieces ence on record which n cash for purchase of ssessment stage itself provide him with all corded under section he assessee had also o cross–examine Shri ents were relied upon.
ot accededto by the aforesaid issue before er (Appeals) in letter sing Officer to provide idences available with perusal of the remand report dated book, it is avoided the provided wi provided th
Commission obvious tha payment in requirement that if the deciding an such advers opportunity
Further, the heavily relie for making assessee, w
Officer has also not al
Niranjan Hi upon. This, against the decision of Thus, for the 11. Ev of the follow addition on drive found recorded un contained in said pen dr course of se party. Ther that the con that the ass section 69B statement r has not mad other corrob in cash, no submissions in the pen d d 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at P very much clear that the Assessing Of e issue and there is no mention whethe ith all the adverse material and if, not hem to the assessee as per the direct ner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid fa at the addition of ` 42 lakh made on a cash is without complying with the prim t of rules of natural justice. It is well settl
Assessing Officer intends to utilize any issue against the assessee he is required se materials to the assessee but also off to rebut / contradict the contents of th e assessment order reveals that the A ed upon the statement recorded from Shri N the disputed addition. However, it is t which prima–facie appears to be correct, not provided the full text of such stateme llowed the assessee an opportunity to iranandani, and other persons whose sta in my view, is in gross violation of rules o basic principle of law. In this context, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vin e aforesaid reason, the addition made cann ven otherwise also, the addition made is u wing reasons. As discussed earlier in the account of on–money is the information d during the search and seizure operation nder section 132(4) of the Act. As rega n the pen drive, it is the contention of th rive was not found from the possession of earch and seizure operation conducted in refore, in absence of further corroborative ntents of the pen drive are correct and au sessee paid on–money in cash, no addition
B of the Act. Further contention of the as recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, S de any reference to the assessee, therefor borative evidence to establish that assesse addition can be made. I find substantial m s of the assessee. In my view, neither the i drive nor the statement recorded under sec
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
15
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria
Page–53 of the paper fficer has completely er the assessee was so, whether he has tions of the learned acts, it is patent and account of on–money mary and fundamental led proposition of law adverse material for d to not only confront ffer him a reasonable the adverse material.
Assessing Officer has Niranjan Hiranandani, the allegation of the t, that the Assessing ent recorded and has cross–examine Shri atements were relied of natural justice and I may refer to the nod Agarwal (supra).
not be sustained.
unsustainable because e order, the basis for contained in the pen n and the statement ards the information he assessee that the f the assessee but in n case of a third evidence to establish uthentic to the extent n can be made under ssessee is that in the Shi Niranjan Hirandani re, in absence of any e has paid on–money merit in the aforesaid information contained ction 132(4) of the Act from Shri N factum of pa doubt or su enquiry / in material to over and ab
Officer has the paymen from the ve
Notably, wh concerning s the Tribunal
……..
15. Reliance
I.T.A. No. 556
held as under.
6. I have h addition for corroborativ upon some the touchsto
Kalyana sun record to su the builder’
Evidence Ac aside the o deleted.
16. In the c
Assessment Ye under:
9. Since the passed by th is not susta statement m
Group und
Moreover, s under sectio
Parmar of Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to concl ayment of on–money by the assessee. At b uspicion against the conduct of the assess vestigation to find out and bring on record conclusively prove the payment of on–mo bove the declared sale consideration. Appa failed to bring any such evidence / materi nt of on–money by the assessee. More so ery beginning has stoutly denied payment o hile dealing with a case involving simila similar transaction with another concern o l in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) e has also been placed in the case of M
61/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12)whereas heard both the parties and perused the r r on-money payment has been done in ve material found from assessee. The add statement of the builder. Such additions a one of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in t ndasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover uggest that so called electronic evidence co
’s office is compliant with the requireme ct regarding admissibility of electronic ev orders of the authority below and direct case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, IT ear: 2011-12, wherein the coordinate e sole issue raised in this appeal is covered the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal addit ainable. Because the addition is made me made by one Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the er section 132(4) of the Act without statement or any material seized during on 132(4) of the Act can only be used
Cosmos Group and not against the as ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
16
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria lusively establish the best, they can raise a see triggering further the relevant fact and oney by the assessee arently, the Assessing ial on record to prove o, when the assessee of on–money in cash.
ar nature of dispute of Hiranandani Group, has held as under:–
Monika Anand Gupta s coordinate bench record. I find thatthe thiscase without any dition is solely based are not sustainable on the case of CIT vs P.V r there is nothing on ollected by revenue at nt of section 65B of vidence. Hence, I set that the addition be TA No.1553/M/2021
20. In the 315), it was h party informat the opportunit addition/disallo
21. In the c tax, Mumbai under In the light account pay on. Excel sheet alleged to have been reco is also not admissible being not proved un ct. So in view of the matter, addition m y the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed above proposition, we place reliance u
TO Vs. Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2573/M
Aggarwal, ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017
.ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmash
DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/202
e records we also noticed that no state e, and none of the persons, whose stat roduced for cross-examination. Even entioned in the assessment order doe ssessee.
the AO during the course of assessm opportunity to cross examine of the ere relied upon by the revenue which re natural justice’. In this regard, relian ision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR eld that ‘failure to give the assessee e witness, whose statements are relie ciples of Natural Justice. It is a serious llity’.
case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders held that the ‘addition/disallowance m tion without subjecting it to further sc ty of cross examination of the third owance bad in law’
case of H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Comm
72taxmann.com110 (Bombay) where t of the fact that the money was advance yee cheque and was repaid vide account pa
ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
17
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria overed from the office nder section 65 of the made by the AO and e eyes of law, hence by the assessee is upon the decision in Mum/2017, ITO Vs.
Heena Dashrath hrree Dr. D.Y. Patil
22. ement was provided tements were relied the extract of the es not indicate the ment also failed to e witnesses, whose esulted in ‘breach of nce is being placed e case of Andaman
TR 241 (SC) wherein the opportunity to ed upon, results in s flaw which renders
Pvt. ltd. (418ITR made solely on third crutiny and denying party renders the missionerof Income- ein it was held as ed apparently by the ayee cheque the least that the Ass the assessee to be used a This not hav the matter therefore, r the Tribuna material us examine the the request furnish the a were denied
22. Taking i legal prepositio the addition, c allowed.”
9. In view of confrontation, la incriminating m respectfully follow this Tribunal, we and the ground n on merits. In view deleted on mer academic and req

19 and A.Y. 2019
ld. CIT(A) is delet
11. In the result
Order pron

(RAHUL C
JUDICIA
Mumbai;
Dated: 23/12/20

Tarun, Sr. P.S..

Copy of the Ord
1. The Appellan
2. The Respond
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mu
5. Guard file.

////

9-20 as well and the addition c ted.
t, appeals of the assessee are al ounced in the open Court on 2 CHAUDHARY)
(OM PRA
AL MEMBER
ACCOUNT
025
er forwarded to :
nt ent.
umbai

BY (Assistant R

ITAT

ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025
19
Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria onfirmed by the llowed.
23/12/2025. AKASH KANT)
TANT MEMBER
ORDER,