MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

Per O. P. Kant (A.M.)

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the common order dated
01.09.2025
passed by the Ld.

Commissioner of Center, Delhi [in 20and 2020-21. appeals, same we consolidated ord repetition of fact.
2. Firstly, we
2019-20. The gr reproduced as un

1
la
A th th is 2
la w
B m
Ap

3
la fo d w

4
la ab us

5
la f Income Tax Appeals/National n short Ld. CIT (A)] for Assessm
The issue in dispute being co ere heard together and disposed der for the sake of convenie take up the appeal of the as rounds raised by the assessee nder:-
. On the facts and circumstances of the c aw, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the st
.O. about that issuing the notice u/s 15
he Act without DIN. It is blatant contraven he Circular No. 19/2019,dated 14-8
ssued by the CBDT
. On the facts and circumstances of the c aw, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming ad without referring to any incrementing doc
Besides,he has not referred to any incrimi material in the satisfaction note issued ppellant.
. On the facts and circumstances of the c aw, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand o or not sharing incrementing documents uring the course of search of rubberwala which was pertained to the appellant.
. On the facts and circumstances of the c aw, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming stand o bout the not providing statement and ma sed by him against the appellant
. On the facts and circumstances of the c aw, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand o
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
2
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram
Faceless Appeal ment Year 2019- ommon in both d of by way of a ence and avoid ssessee for A.Y.
e in appeal are case in tand of 53C of ntion of 8-2019
case in ddition ument.
inating to the case in of A.O.
found a group case in of A.O.
aterials case in of A.O.

ab pe ap

6
la
R
1

7
th sa cu ov n th sa vi
In 3. Consequent
132 of the Act o
Group, including
& Infrastructure were initiated in t
3.1 Briefly state filed its return o
28.06.2019 decla search and seizu
(For short, “the including its fla
Infrastructure Lt gathered that the bout opportunity of cross examination erson whose statements were used again ppellant
. On the facts and circumstances of the c aw, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addi
Rs.
0,12,350/- u/s 69 of the Act.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the he CIT(A) erred in holding that a com atisfaction note is valid in the eyes of la urrent legal and judicial pre verwhelmingly requires separate satisf otes for each assessment year and/or he recording of a combined or consol atisfaction note has consistently been h itiate the proceedings under section 153C ncome Tax Act.
t to a search and seizure action n 17.03.2021 in the case of th g its flagship concern M/s Rubb
Ltd. (RHIL), proceedings unde the case of the assessee.
ed the facts of the case are th of income for the year under c aring total income of Rs.2,86,79
re action u/s. 132 of the Incom
Act”) was carried out on “Rub agship concern M/s Rubberw td. (RHIL). During the search e assessee purchased a shop in ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
3
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram of the nst the case in ition of e case, mbined aw, as ecedent faction entity; lidated held to C of the n under section he “Rubberwala”
berwala Housing er section 153C hat the Assessee consideration on 0/-. Consequent to a me Tax Act, 1961
bberwala” group wala Housing &
action, it was “Platinum Mall”

Building, Girgaon paid in cash for was paid by the amounting to Rs
Thereafter, proce the case of the as 4. During the most notably, Sh and registration
A pen drive of 16
purportedly adm cash components
5. Relying upo third parties, the to the assessee. T of Shri Imran An Rubberwala Grou and registration revealed that th component and components are of RHIL and Prom related to shops n, Mumbai and amount of Rs. 3
acquisition of the property. Fu e assessee in A.Y. 2019-20 an s. 30,37,050/- and Rs. 41,603
eedings under section 153C w ssessee.
search, certain statements of hri Imran Ansari, an employee of shops in the “Platinum Mall”
6 GB was retrieved from his resid mitted contained excel files alle s received from various buyers.
on the above material and the e Assessing Officer issued a sho
The Assessing Officer referred t nsari who stated that he had bee up of entities since 2010 and wa of the shops in “Platinum he total price of the shops d banking channel compone decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh moter of Rubberwala Group) and s was maintained by him in ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
4
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram
30,78,653/- was urther, the cash nd A.Y. 2020-21
3/- respectively.
were initiated in f key persons—
e handling sale
” were recorded.
dence, which he egedly recording e statements of ow-cause notice to the statement en working with as handling sale
Mall” and also contained cash ent and these h (Director/CMD d that such data n excel sheets.

Corroborating to Shri Imran Ansa the residence of retrieved from contained data m
Mall. He also rev
Abrar Ahmed wh
Imran Ansari to u
6. The assesse any person, disp specifically asser and his share, e
Crucially, he sou upon and reques whose deposition acceded to by th search in case of had offered 8% o made an additio
2019-20, treatin towards the shop
6. Aggrieved b assessee preferre o the fact that data was being ari in excel sheet, during search f Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB his possession which he ac maintained for the sale of sho vealed that he used to take the ho after receiving cash confirm update the diaries and excel file ee categorically denied having p uted knowledge of the individu rted that the purchase was in even if assumed, could not ex ught the statements and adverse sted opportunity to cross-exam ns were invoked. These requ he Assessing Officer. Based on f RHIL Group and also the fact t of the overall unaccounted recei on of ₹30,37,050/- u/s 69 of ng the same as unexplained c p allegedly purchased jointly by by the order of the Assessin ed appeal before the ld. CIT(A)
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
5
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram g maintained by h proceedings at pen drive was ccepted that it ops in Platinum e parties to Shri ms back to Shri
.
paid any cash to uals named, and joint ownership xceed one-third.
e material relied mine the persons uests were not n the finding of hat RHIL Group ipts. , the ld AO the Act in A.Y.
cash investment the assessee.
ng Officer, the who confirmed the said addition relevant shop am and Rs. 13,868/
addition confirme this appeal before
7. Before us, t incriminating ma
Group does not i has erred in con not providing an was sought to b been granted. Mo not an “evidence and hence no r corroborative or vehemently argu made or confirm there has to be p not been brought
Pravin Khetaram no. 4742/4743/4
8. We have hea relevant material n to the extent of 1/3rd share of mounting to Rs. 10,12,350/- i
/- in A.Y. 2020-21. Further, a ed by the ld. CIT(A), the assesse e us.
the ld. AR of the assessee sub aterial found in the possession implicate the assessee. Furthe nfirming the stand of Assessing ny statement of third party on be placed and even no cross e oreover, the material or stateme
” at all against the assessee in reliance can be placed thereo cogent evidence against the ed that addition u/s. 69 of the med merely on guess work or as ositive evidence against the asse t on record. He further relied on m Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circ
4744 / Mum / 2025].
ard rival submission of parties l on record. We find substanti
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
6
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram f assessee in the n A.Y. 2019-20
aggrieved by the ee has preferred bmitted that the n of Rubberwala er, the ld. CIT(A) g Officer despite which reliance xamination has ent referred to is the eyes of law on without any assessee. It is e Act cannot be ssumptions and essee which has n the decision of cle, Mumbai [ITA and perusal the ial merit in the contentions of th that where an ad the statement o belonging to or r confronted with opportunity to cr relied upon. Failu
8.1 In the case excel sheets and third-party prem on-money by th issued by the ass searched person.
excel sheet can evidence unless d the assessee b corroborative evid exists. Neither th
Ansari or Shri Ta
CIT(A)’s approach does not cure th admissible evide suspicion, howev
Third-party adm he assessee. It is a well-settled ddition is sought to be made so of a third party or upon ma relating to the assessee, the as h such material and afforde ross-examine the persons whose ure to do so vitiates the assessm e alleged incriminating materia d statements, have emanated e mises and no document evidenc e assessee like any receipt of sessee etc was found from the p
. In our opinion, mere entries nnot, by themselves, constitu duly corroborated, authenticate by independent and cogent dence of actual cash payment he pen drive nor the statement abrez Shaikh were supplied to th h of merely restricting the ad he fundamental infirmity of ab nce against the assessee. It is ver strong, cannot take the issions, untested and uncorrob
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
7
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram principle of law lely based upon aterial allegedly ssessee must be ed an effective e statements are ment itself.
l i.e. pen drive, exclusively from cing payment of f cash payment possession of the in a third-party ute substantive d, and linked to material. No by the assessee ts of Shri Imran he assessee. The dition to 1/3rd bsence of legally s trite law that place of proof.
borated, cannot form the sole b
Revenue has fai bring on record establishing that and above the re
Tribunal in the c
DCIT (supra) held
“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 basis of an addition under s iled to discharge the burden c credible, independent, and c t the assessee made any payme ecorded consideration. The coor case of assessee Pravin Khetar d that :- 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:
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
8
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram section 69. The cast upon it to cogent material ent in cash over rdinate Bench of amm Purohit v.
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 5.1. O covered by was also in along with residences o
Tabrez Shai group hand
RHIL were c 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 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 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
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
9
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 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 ing 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.

Niranjan Hir
Apparently,
Assessing O the first app dated 18th the assesse him indicatin 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 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 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
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
14
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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
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 section 69B statement r has not mad other corrob in cash, no submissions in the pen d 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
……..

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
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
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
15
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 lusively establish the best, they can raise a see triggering further d 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:–
Assessment Ye under:
9. Since the passed by th is not susta statement m
Timber Industr it has been he cross examine breach of princ the order a nul 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 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’.
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
16
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram
TA No.1553/M/2021
bench has held as d by the order (supra) tion made in this case erely on the basis of promoters of Cosmos t any corroboration.
the course of search against Mr. Suraj ssessee without any 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

(KAVITHA
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.

////

rits, therefore all other gro quire no adjudication.
acts and circumstances of the ca
, the decision rendered for A.Y.
atis mutandis to A.Y. 2020-21
ed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.
t, appeals of the assessee are al ounced in the open Court on 2 RAJAGOPAL)
(OM PRA
AL MEMBER
ACCOUNT
025
er forwarded to :
nt ent.
umbai

BY (Assistant R

ITAT
ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025
18
Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram unds rendered ase are identical
. 2019-20 above as well and the llowed.
23/12/2025. AKASH KANT)
TANT MEMBER
ORDER,