BIREN MANNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO -WARD-23(1)(6), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
03.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2022-23, raising following grounds:
1. Void Order
1.1. On facts, in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, ("The CIT(A)"

erred in uph
Assessing
O
(collectively "
initio as the opportunity of 1.2. The auth a. the stateme b. entries fo received from without prov opportunity to 1.3. The auth was allegedly different entit entries in boo the sales reco no say nor a from the appe
2. Addition of 2.1. The auth appellant a amounting in Tax Act, 1961
Ruparel Reali
2.2. The auth the said entri apparent and name of the p wrong e.g. Vi corroborative
2.3. The auth of rupees 81,0
after he had a entering in to project on 31-
Da
ITA holding the assessment order framed
Officer,
Assessment
Unit
(Faceless), the authorities below") dated 15-03-202
same has been framed without provi f being heard and explain the case to the orities below erred in considering only:
ents of third parties and/or ound in the books of a third-party re m some Viren Manna (Assessee being Biren viding your appellant the entries, st o counter the same.
horities below failed in not considering y received by different persons for a flat b ty and cash handed over to yet a third p oks were made subsequently collating t ords of the builder and in the process the any incriminating or corroborative eviden ellant.
f Rs 81,00,000
horities below erred in assessing the total at Rs.94,87,760
making addition/
all to Rs.81,00,000 under section 69B
1 (The Act) allegedly paid in cash as on- ity.
horities below did not provide copies of the ies and opportunity to confront the same d patent errors on the fact of the record person who paid the alleged money me
Viren Manna not Biren Manna, Dolat etc evidence.
horities blow failed to appreciate that the 00,000 as tabulated below were given by already acquired irreversible RERA prote o an agreement to purchase flat at a RER
-03-2021
ate
Rupees
Shri Biren Manna
2
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
d by the Ld.
(the 'A.O.),
24 is void ab iding effective appellant.
egarding cash n Manna) tatement and that the cash booked from a person and the he same from appellant had nce was found l income of the /disallowance of the Income money to M/s e statement or in the light of d such as the entioned were c. without any alleged sums y the appellant ected rights by RA Registered

21
03
05
10
To 2.4. The aut amount PAID outstanding ti
3. Assessmen
The Authorit
81,00,000 as ignoring that business inco
4. The appel without prejud
2. Briefly stated, t year under considera
₹13,87,760/-. The r selected for scrutiny
Income-tax Act , 196
with. In the assess
15/03/2024, additio purchase of flat was section 69 of the Act addition. Aggrieved, raising the grounds a ITA

-04-2021
25,00,000
-05-2021
25,00,000
-05-2021
3,00,000
0-05-2021
28,00,000
tal
81,00,000
thorities below erred in not distinguish
D and amount payable as per the ag ill date, as the said flat is still under cons nt U/s 115BBE of the Act ties below erred in assessing the a s other income under section 115BBE the appellant has no source of income o ome since the beginning till date.
lant prays that the aforesaid grounds dice to and independent of one another.
the assessee filed his return of ation on 31.12.2022 declaring a return of income filed by the y assessment and statutory no 61 ( in short the Act) were issue sment completed u/s 143(3) on for cash money of Rs. 81,00
s held as unexplained expendit t. On further appeal, the ld CIT the assessee is in appeal befo as reproduced as above.
Shri Biren Manna
3
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
hing between greement, still struction.
mount of Rs
E of the Act other than the of appeal are f income for the a total income of e assessee was otices under the ed and complied of the Act on 0,000/- paid for ture in terms of T(A), upheld the ore the Tribunal

Officer, therefore, issued a sho essee to explain the source of t
000/- reflected in the seized m
Ruparel Realty Group. In respon having made any cash pa bmitted that the total investmen tly made with his spouse, and aid through accounted sources further contended that no seize on by the Assessing Officer was y opportunity of cross-examinat t that the agreement for sale w nsideration of ₹2.63 crores an eable agreement existed, there w subsequent cash payment. It w ddition was based solely on loos of a third party and on mere orative material linking the a nt. Reliance was placed on vario mit that no addition could be s nating material found from th mplicating him. But the Ld. As Shri Biren Manna
5
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
ow cause notice the alleged cash aterial found at nse, the assessee ayment to the nt in the flat was that the entire s from business ed document or s ever furnished tion provided. It was executed on nd, once a duly was no occasion was emphasized se papers found e presumptions, assessee to the ous decisions of sustained in the he assessee or ssessing Officer rejected the content
Rs.81,00,000/-.
4.4 On appeal, the grounds. First, it was the search and the s
Ramchandran S. Iye the names of “Viren of the assessee. Now the assessee had pai that the Assessing O unsupported by the s
4.5 Secondly, it was the statements recor the assessee in any never confronted to t examination afforded submitted that an a statements and with unsustainable in law
4.6 Thirdly, it was conducted at the as from a third party c assessee without inde
ITA tion of the assessee and ma e assessee assailed the additi s submitted that the loose pape tatements of Shri Hitesh Lalcha er referred to cash receipts of ₹
Manna” and “Shri Dolai”, and n where in the seized material wa id cash of ₹81,00,000/-. It was Officer had made the addition o seized record.
s argued that neither the seized rded during the search specifi y payment of on-money. The s the assessee, nor was any oppor d, even several years after the addition based purely on untes hout following principles of natu w.
s emphasized that no search ssessee’s premises and that do could not, by themselves, be u ependent corroboration.
Shri Biren Manna
6
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
ade addition of ion on multiple rs seized during andani and Shri
₹61,00,000/- in not in the name as it stated that thus contended on assumptions d documents nor cally implicated statements were rtunity of cross- e search. It was sted third-party ural justice was or survey was ocuments seized used against the 4.7 The assessee pl
Bench in Naren
3265/Mum/2015), w made solely on the premises and state corroborative evidenc this case the transa from the builder has cheque payment was this, the addition m transaction was no Jawaharbhai Atmar wherein it was held without any support or other incriminatin justify an addition specifically pointed o handwriting or signat
4.8 The Ld. CIT(A) r the addition. The documents referred mentioned the name
CIT(A), was a mere cl matched the assesse
ITA laced reliance on the decision of Premchand
Nagda v.
I wherein it was held that no ad basis of documents found fr ments recorded therein, in t ce against the assessee. It may b ction of purchase of property b not been denied by the assess s also reflected in the seized no ade on the basis of noting in ot confirmed. Reliance was a ram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 T that mere third-party notings ting evidence such as handwrit ng material belonging to the asse on account of alleged on-m out that none of the seized docu ture of the assessee.
rejected the assessee’s contenti principal reasoning was th to Flat No. 4304 at Rupa e “Viren Manna”, which, accor lerical error for “Biren Manna”, ee’s transaction. The Ld. CIT(A Shri Biren Manna
7
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
f the Coordinate
ITO
(ITA
No.
ddition could be rom third-party the absence of be noted that in by the assessee see. Further, the oting. Inspite of respect of cash also placed on TTJ 36 (Ahd)], s or statements, ting, signatures, essee, could not money. It was uments bore the ions and upheld hat the seized arel Jewel and rding to the Ld.
as other details
A) further relied upon the statement section 132(4), whe handed over to Shri concluded that the and confirmed the ad reproduced as under “6.3 During t furnished the undersigned.
made any ca addition on th in 3 rd party confirmed tha
Ruparel Jew claimed that Shri Viren Ma
Shri Biren Ma appellant. Th purchased fro
4304 at Rupa with the appe as V instead of clerical spe acceptable. Th
Ramchandran and he has s to Shri Milind discussions, t that the appe purchasing th reason to inte
The appellan
Rs.81,00,000
to 6 are decid
5. Before us, the L containing pages 1 to ITA of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer erein it was stated that cash
Milind Ruparel. On this basis assessee had paid on-money o ddition.The relevant finding of t
:
the course of appellate proceedings, the e written submission and the same is pe
The appellant has argued that the app ash payment and further the AO could n he basis of information received from ev premises. From the perusal of seized do at the appellant has purchased the fla wel from Ruparel Realty Group. The a in the seized documents against the c anna name is there whereas the appell anna, therefore, the cash payment is not he appellant has not denied the fact tha om the builder Ruparel Realty Group and arel Jewel. The flat no. and other details ellant's transaction and only the first lett of B and the mistake could have happen elling mistake. Therefore, the appellant ar hese facts are confirmed by one of the ke n S Iyer in the statement recorded u/s 13
tated that the collected cash amount was d Ruparel. In view of the above-mention the AO has established through the seiz ellant has paid the on-money of Rs.81
he flat, therefore, the undersigned does erfere with the addition made in the asse nt has raised the objection on the 0/- through ground nos. 3 to 6, therefore, ded against the appellant.”
Ld. counsel for the assessee file o 117. Shri Biren Manna
8
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
recorded under h collected was , the Ld. CIT(A) of ₹81,00,000/- the Ld. CIT(A) is appellant has erused by the ellant has not not make any idences found ocuments, it is t no. 4304 at appellant has cash payment lant's name is related to the t the flat was d the flat no. is s are matching ter is changed ned on account rgument is not ey person Shri
32(4) of the Act s handed over ned facts and zed documents
1,00,000/- for s not find any essment order.
e addition of ground nos. 3
ed a Paper Book

103
105
106
111
5.4 On examination relied upon by the A refer to receipt of ₹5,00,000/- and ₹3, with Flat No. 4304. ITA

This page contains my To Do Lis
03.05.2021. Apart from that the page also con regarding cash collected from the (i) Rs. 5,00,000 received from Sh
Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel p
I had personally handed over sai
Milind Ruparel (noted by me as T
This page contains my To Do Lis
05.05.2021. Apart from that the page also con regarding cash collected from the (i) Rs. 3,00,000 received from Sh
Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel p
I had personally handed over sai
Milind Ruparel (noted by me as T
This page contains my To Do Lis
06.05.2021. Apart from that the page also con regarding cash collected from the (i) Rs. 5,00,000 received from Sh
Sharma, buyer of Flat No. 4504
project at Sewre.
I had personally handed over sai
Milind Ruparel (noted by me as T
This page contains my To Do Lis
12.05.2021. Apart from that the page also con regarding cash collected from the (i) Rs. 3,00,000 received from Sh
Sharma, buyer of Flat No. 4504
project at Sewre.
I had personally handed over sai
Milind Ruparel n of the statement of Shri Ramch
Assessing Officer, it is evident t
₹25,00,000/- from “Shri Vire
00,000/- from one “Shri Dolai
The Revenue has failed to exp
Shri Biren Manna
10
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
st for the day ntains my noting e following parties.
hri Dolai, buyer of roject at Sewre.
id cash to Shri
TMR in my entries) st for the day ntains my noting e following parties.
hri Dolai, buyer of roject at Sewre.
id cash to Shri
TMR in my entries) st for the day ntains my noting e following parties.
hri Naresh of Ruparel Ariana id cash to Shri
TMR in my entries) st for the day ntains my noting e following parties.
hri Naresh of Ruparel Ariana id cash to Shri handran S. Iyer, that the notings en Manna” and i” in connection plain who “Shri

Dolai” is, or on wha person could be attri stands in the asses against the same fla by the Investigation undermines the relia the course of assessm opportunity to cross- the key persons of th
5.5 We also note evidencing payment record. None of the s of the assessee, nor d was the person wh addition has thus bee
5.6 In our opinion i relied upon were opportunity of cross afforded. It is trite la of the assessee canno with such material a Failure to provide cr and vitiates the addit
ITA at basis amounts allegedly rece buted to the assessee, when the see’s name. The presence of t number, without any enquiry n Wing or the Assessing Of ability of the seized notings them ment proceedings of the Invest
-examine the veracity of the stat he Ruparel Reality was provided that no receipt, confirmation of cash by the assessee has b seized papers bear the handwrit do they conclusively establish th ho allegedly made the cash en founded entirely on third-par it is the admitted position that never confronted to the ass s-examination of the concerne aw that any material collected b ot be used against him unless h and given a fair opportunity to r oss-examination goes to the roo tion.
Shri Biren Manna
11
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
eived from such e flat admittedly multiple names y or clarification fficer, seriously mselves. During igation Wing no tement made by to the assessee.
n, or document been brought on ing or signature hat the assessee payments. The rty material.
t the statements sessee and no ed persons was behind the back he is confronted rebut the same.
ot of the matter

Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribu se of M/s Rucha Consultancy nd 5706/Mum/2024 for assessm ving as under:
tice that the impugned addition has been hird party statement, which has been d is also stated that the said stateme the third party. No other corroborative t on record by the AO to support his s, indeed, received the amount of Rs. 17.0
the assessee had requested the AO to su ements recorded from Shri Prabhkar Da dition has been made by the AO on the nly. However, the AO did not supply the assessee. It is well established prop could not have made addition on the bas ind the back of the assessee, unless th ted with the assessee. The Ld A.R subm ad specifically requested the AO to of Shri Prabhakar Dalvi and the AO di portunity. Hence, the AO could not hav the basis of third party statement and not confronted with the assessee. W
) has relied upon various case laws in s ched by him. Before us, no contrary nce by the revenue. We noticed ear ficer has made the addition u/s 69A of th s not found to be the owner of any cash e view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified i s. 17.00 crores made u/s 69A as unexpla nd no.5 urged by the revenue relates to t khs made on the basis of statement g athi.
the course of search operations, the reve of Shri Shailendra Rathi in Pune. His w d and data back up was taken. In the s athi had accepted that he has received R adiayas in Mumbai. Though the assess ion, yet the AO took the view that th received by Shri Shailendra Rathi in th
Shri Biren Manna
12
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
unal in identical
LLP in ITA No.
ment year 2021- n made on the denied by the ent has been material has case that the 00 crores. It is upply to it the alvi, since the e basis of that the copy of position of law sis of material hose materials mitted that the allow cross id not provide ve made any which is not We notice that support of the decision was rlier that the he Act, but the h. Accordingly, in deleting the ained money.
the addition of given by Shri enue searched whatsapp chat tatement, Shri
Rs.80.00 lakhs see disowned he above said he capacity of consultant to above said a 69A of the A revenue is con
12.2. We hear noticed that whatsapp ch
Shailendra Ra the assessing
(employee) of Shailendra R employee. He been made by that the wha assessee. Th
Rathi also did held that the of the assess notice that th a third party to support of was received
In support of following case
(a) PCIT (Cen
813)(SC);
(b) Kailashben
(c) DCIT vs.
355)(Guj);
(d) Naren Prem
(e) CIT vs. San
(f) Jawaharb
36)(Ahd);
(g) ACIT vs. Pr
(h) ACIT vs. A Trib);
(i) Pramod Pan
ITA the Rucha Group. Accordingly, the AO amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as unexplaine ct. The Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition a ntesting the said decision.
rd the parties on this issue and perused t the AO has made this addition on at and also on the basis of statement athi. The Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the p g officer that Shri Shailendra Rathi is t f the assessee is not correct. He has sta
Rathi is an independent consultant ence the basis foundation on which the y the AO fails here. Further, the Ld CIT( atsapp chat did not contain any refe e Ld CIT(A) has also stated that the Sh d not refer to the name of the assessee. A whatsapp chat did not have any bearing see and hence no addition could be ma e AO has made the impugned addition o statement without bringing any corrobor f his view that the impugned amount of on behalf of the assessee.
f the above decision, the Ld CIT(A) ha e laws:- ntral) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161
Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
assessed the ed money u/s and hence the the record. We the basis of given by Shri presumption of the consultant ated that Shri and not an e addition has (A) has stated erence to the hri Shailendra
Accordingly, he g in the hands ade. Thus, we on the basis of rative material f Rs.80 lakhs as referred to taxmann.com
1)(Gij); taxmann.com m) of 2015.); hi);
010)(128 TTJ
Trib); com 124)(Mum
12); (i)

(j) Atul Tantia
12.3 From th has deleted t earlier paragr assessee, we invoked only assessee, wh the AO had a Prakash Nilaw of Shri Shaile
Tribunal, vide
Shri Prashant
The Tribunal
".....the asses explain the im more particul said docume explain the recorded."
12.4. Accordi justified in de
5.8 The Co-ordinate
Raghubir Bhandari year 2017-18 also in on-money received in examination has be ordinate Bench is rep
“18. Conside record, we ob builder Shri K that they ha conducted by owners. The T on the above
Flat Owners assessment opportunity w
ITA a vs.DCIT (ITA No.492/Kol/2021 dated 28
e facts discussed above, we notice that this addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs for justifi raphs, while adjudicating the issue No.1
e have held that the provisions of sec.
if money is physically found in the hich is not the case. The Ld A.R further s also made the addition in the hands of war on the basis of whatsapp chat found endra Rathi. The said addition has been d e its order dated 12-02-2025 passed in t Prakash Nilawar in ITA No.5689 & 5073
held as under:- ssee cannot be saddled with the res mage/sheet found from the mobile of a larly in the present situation where the ent Shri Shailendra Rathi himself coul contents therein as is evident from h ingly, we are of the view that the Ld eleting the addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs.”
e Bench of the Tribunal in the in ITA No. 3646/Mum/2023
n identical circumstances mak n cash without providing oppor een deleted. The relevant find produced as under:
ered the rival submissions and materi bserve that there was a search action in t
Kulin S Vora and in that case the builder ave received on-money from the var y them and he has disclosed the name
Tax Authorities proceeded to make the a declaration of receipt of on-money in the . Assessee being one of the flat pu was reopened. However, no cross was given to the assessee. In this c
Shri Biren Manna
14
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
8-03-2023); the Ld CIT(A) fiable reasons.
urged by the 69A could be hands of the submitted that Shri Prashant d in the phone deleted by the n the hands of 3/Mum/2024. sponsibility to a third person, owner of the ld not clearly his statement d CIT(A) was case of Kundal for assessment ing addition for rtunity of cross- ding of the Co- ial placed on the case of the r has accepted rious projects of all the flat addition based e hands of the urchaser, the examination ase, no such opportunity w recorded wer the assessee careful consid in a position t duty of the t arrange for th the assessee whatever the authorities, th
Officer in this hands of the statement of Officer merely our considere proper mater statement fro assessee sho made the on- the third par prove its poin situation, the assessee. The as bad in law and unverifie filed by the as 5.9 Similarly, the T in ITA No. 268/Mum addition of the on- cross-examination.
reproduced as under “6. We have that the Asse taken from S u/s. 133A of does not have AO to bring entries made officer would the documen
ITA was granted to the assessee and only re supplied to the assessee and in fact, to bring the builder before the Assessing deration, we observe that the assessee is to bring any builder before the tax autho tax authorities if they want to rely on he cross examination and opportunity to b
. Apart from the above statement of th ey have declared in their assessment his information was never available with s case, hence, there is no evidences av e Tax Authorities against the assesse the builder. The additions proposed by y relying on the statement of the builder ed view the addition cannot be made wi rial on record or bringing on record the om the builder as well as the asses ould be one of the party should concede t money. In this case merely relying on the rty and without giving opportunity to th nt of view, which is against the natural j e addition cannot be made in the h erefore, we are inclined to treat the asse w which was made purely on the basis o ed statement of the third party. Accord ssessee is allowed.”
Tribunal in the case of Yes Synt
/2024 for assessment year 2013
money without providing opp
The relevant finding of th
:
heard the parties and perused the reco essing Officer has placed reliance on Shri Binesh Balakrishnan. The stateme the Act and it is well settled proposition e any evidentiary value. Hence, it is imp any other corroborative material to sub in the document. The responsibility of go up, when the assessee denies the en nt seized during the course of surve
Shri Biren Manna
15
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
the statement it was asked g Officer. After s or will never orities, it is the statement to be extended to e builder and was with the the Assessing vailable in the ee except the the Assessing r. Therefore, in ithout bringing e proper joint ssee wherein that they have e statement of e assessee to justice. In this hands of the essment order of assumption dingly, appeal thetics Pvt. Ltd.
3-14 deleted the portunity of the he Tribunal is ord. We notice the statement ent was given that the same erative for the bstantiate the the assessing ntries made in ey operations.

However, we further enqui substantiate has made cas
7. Further, discrepancies assessee on 2
of allotment down the rel survey, as the is stated tha assessee in noted down in made all paym were furnishe
8. The Ld A.R also supporte and this repo necessity to p done at mark
No.3049/Mum examined the basis of evid search opera bench expres made on the b purchase con no other evi relevant obse said case are "15. We shall deliberate on the A.O on th
"on money" fo have perused record on the made in the h the material p drive home h made by the Developers. W that the ass purchase of p of the pen d
ITA e notice that the Assessing Officer neith ry nor bring on record any other credib the entries made in the document that sh payment of Rs.1.61 crores.
the entries made in the document s. The allotment letter for flats has been 22/03/2011, while the document notes d as 07/01/2013. This apparent contra liability of the document taken during e entries made therein is contrary to the a t the flats were finally registered in the Financial Year 2016-17 and this fact n the Statement. The case of the assessee ments by way of cheques only and the re ed to the AO.
R further submitted that the purchase val ed by the valuation report issued by a reg ort support the case of the assessee that pay part of consideration in cash, as the p ket rates. In the case of Shri Anil Jaggi m/2016 dated 20-12-2017), the co-or e addition made in the hands of buyer dence seized from the builder during ations conducted u/s 132 of the Act. Th ssed the view that the addition could n basis of recording done at the end of buil nsideration matches with the market rate idence corroborating those entries are ervations made by the co-ordinate bench extracted below:- l now take up the case of the assessee the validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 c he ground that the assessee had made or purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview d d the facts of the case and the materia basis of which the addition of Rs. 2.23 c hands of the assessee. We have further d placed on record and the contentions of is contention that no payment of any "on e assessee for purchase of flats from M
We find that the genesis of the conclusi sessee had paid "on money" of Rs. 2
property under consideration is based on rive which was seized from the reside
Shri Biren Manna
16
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
her made any ble material to the assessee are prone to issued to the down the date diction brings the course of actual facts. It e name of the has not been e is that it has elevant details lue of flats are gistered valuer t there was no purchase was vs. ACIT (ITA rdinate bench of flat on the the course of he co-ordinate not have been lder, when the es and further e found. The h in the above on merits and crore made by a payment of developers. We l available on crore had been deliberated on the Id. A.R to n money" was M/s Lakeview ion of the A.O
2.23 crore for n the contents nce of an ex- employee of H the pen driv agreement w heading "Amo
No. of the a property purc from Lakeview the same wo and payment property und emerges from material facts paid the mon and who had inferences as purchase of uncorroborate where the inf mystery till d course of his was aware of nor had with cash towards
Sh. Niranjan course of the amounts aggr were the on- additional inc for tax in the p of the consid contention of recorded in th
Hiranandani, inextricably e not lead to dr made by th consideration that the cons property und value" fixed substantially assessee tha property und considered v department fo of "on money the investmen
ITA

Hiranandani group. We have perused th ve (Page 42 of APB) and find oursel with the view of the Id A.R that though ount of on money paid" the name, addr assessee is mentioned alongwith the d chased by him, viz. Flat no.2501 in "Some w Developers (a Hiranandani group conce uld not conclusively prove suppression t of "on money" by the assessee for pu der consideration. We find that the in m the print out of the pen drive falls sh s, viz. date and mode of receipt of "on mon ney, to whom the money was paid, date d prepared the details, as a result whereo s regards payment of "on money" by the of the property under considera ed. We further find that what was the formation was received in the pen drive a date. We find that Sh. Niranjan Hirana cross-examination had clearly stated th f the person who had made the entry in h him any evidence that the assessee h s purchase of flat. We have deliberated on Hiranandani in his statement recorded o
Search & seizure proceedings had confi regating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in money received on sale of flats, which w come under Sec. 132(4) and thereafter of petition filed before the Settlement comm dered view that there is substantial f the Id. A.R that mere admission of he pen drive as the additional income by falling short of any such material vidence payment of "on money" by the as rawing of adverse inferences as regards t he assessee for purchase of the pr n. We rather hold a strong conviction that sideration paid by the assessee for pu der consideration when pitted against by the stamp valuation authority is high, further fortifies the veracity of the at his investment made towards pur der consideration was well in order. W view that though the material acted or drawing of adverse inferences as reg
" by the assessee formed a strong basis nt made by the assessee for purchase of Shri Biren Manna
17
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
he print out of lves to be in h against the ress and PAN details of the erset" building ern), however, of investment urchase of the nformation as hort of certain ney", who had of agreement of the adverse e assessee for ation remain e source from also remains a andani in the hat neither he the pen drive, had paid any n the fact that on oath in the irmed that the the pen drive was offered as ffered as such ission. We are force in the the amounts y Sh. Niranjan which would ssessee would the investment roperty under t the very fact urchase of the t the "market found to be e claim of the rchase of the We are of the upon by the ards payment s for doubting of the property under conside which would not inspire m construed by in the hands o as the mate corroborate investment m conclusively f made payme consideration observations drawn by the crore by the Lakeview Dev
A.O, which i sustained. We authorities an addition of Rs
In the case b during the co
Act and furt receipts as it action taken presumption t
9. In the inst account of foll
(a) The impug operations.
(b) The accou statement tak evidentiary va
(c) The dates dates of allotm
(d) As observe entries made viz. date and money, to wh
10. In view of impugned ad
ITA eration, but the same falling short of clinc have irrefutably evidenced the said fa much of confidence as regards the way th the lower authorities for drawing of adve of the assessee. We thus are of a strong c rial relied upon by the lower authori the adverse inferences drawn as made by the assessee, therefore, the form a basis for concluding that the a nt of "on money" for purchase of the p n. We thus in the backdrop of o are of the considered view that the adve e A.O as regards payment of "on money assessee for purchase of Flat No. 25
velopers are based on of premature obser in the absence of any clinching eviden
We thus are unable to subscribe to the view nd set aside the order of the CIT(A) s s. 2.23 crores in the hands of the assesse before the co-ordinate bench, the pen dri urse of search operations conducted u/s ther the builder has offered the alleg ts income. The co- ordinate bench has by the builder would not automatically that the concerned assessee has paid on tant case, the facts are not in better foo lowing reasons:- gned document was found during the cou untant and director has admitted the e ken u/s 133A of the Act, which does alue.
mentioned in the document did not matc ment or registration.
ed by the co-ordinate bench in the above in the document falls short of certain m d mode of receipt of "on money", who hom the money was paid, date of agreeme f the foregoing discussions, we are of the ddition of Rs.1.61 crores made by th
Shri Biren Manna
18
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
ching material act, thus, does hey have been erse inferences conviction that ties does not regards the same cannot assessee had property under our aforesaid erse inferences y" of Rs. 2.23
501 from M/s rvations of the nce cannot be w of the lower sustaining the ee.
ive was found s 132(4) of the ged on-money held that the y support the money.
oting at all on urse of survey entries in the not have any ch with actual said case, the material facts, had paid the ent etc.
e view that the he AO is not sustainable in Ld CIT(A) on addition.”
5.10 The Coordinate held that additions sustained where the statements or docum examination, indepe alleged cash transac lack of reliability of t opportunity of cross the persons whose s
In the totality of t considered view that merely on assumpt material, in clear vio same, therefore, can the Ld. CIT(A) is dele in the grounds raised
6. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
ITA n law. Accordingly, we set aside the ord this issue and direct the AO to delete th e Benches of the Tribunal, ha on account of alleged on-mo ey rest solely on uncorrobora ments, particularly in the abs endent evidence linking the a ctions. In the instant case we h the entries recorded in the seiz s-examination not provided to statement has been relied for m he facts and circumstances, t the addition of ₹81,00,000/- tions, surmises, and unverif olation of the principles of natu nnot be sustained. The said ad eted. Accordingly, the issue in d d by the assessee is allowed.
he appeal of the assessee is allow ced in the open Court on 22/
-
S
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Shri Biren Manna
19
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
der passed by he above said ave consistently oney cannot be ated third-party sence of cross- assessee to the have also noted ed material and the assessee of making addition.
we are of the has been made fied third-party ural justice. The ddition made by dispute involved wed.
12/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Dated: 22/12/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Shri Biren Manna
20
A No. 6373/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai