Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and survey action was conducted at the premises of the Sakseria Group of Companies, leading to the seizure of Excel-based management information sheets. These sheets contained notings suggestive of cash investment for land acquisition. Statements of key individuals, TNS and NKS, were recorded, but they were later retracted. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 69A/69B based on these statements and seized documents.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to jurisdictional infirmities, specifically the issuance of the notice under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the scheme notified under Section 151A. Additionally, the court found that the addition was based on unverified Excel sheets and uncorroborated statements that were later retracted, lacking independent evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid given the AO's jurisdiction and the evidentiary value of retracted statements and uncorroborated documents.
Sections Cited
148, 132(4), 69A, 69B, 234B, 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& HON’BLE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14.
Since all the issues involved in these three appeals are 2. common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take A.Y 2013-14 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
3221/Mum/2025, A.Y 2013-14
3. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:
Ground No. 1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 50, Mumbai (herein referred to as CIT (A) erred in holding that the DCIT, Central Circle 8(1) (herein referred to as AO) was right in reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act. The Appellants submit that the conditions precedent to reopening of the assessment are not compiled with and the Order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and therefore the reopening of assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio and the Appellants pray that the Order be quashed. Ground no. 2 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO was right in making an addition of Rs.2,05,61,242 under section 69A/69B as being cash applied towards purchase of land at Agarsure, Alibaug. The Appellants submit that the additions are made purely on surmises and conjectures and in any event the provisions of section 69A/69B are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of their case. The Appellants therefore pray that the addition made under section 69A/69B should be deleted. Ground no. 3
The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced
The controversy, in essence, centers upon additions made on the basis of certain excel sheets found during the course of search, the evidentiary worth of the statements recorded under section 132(4), and the consequential additions of unexplained investments under section 69A/69B of the Act.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a part of the Sakseria Group of Companies. Assessee is a private limited company incorporated especially for acquisition of land in and around Agarsure. The Company has been aggregating land parcels in and around Agarsure for over a decade.
On 7th October, 2021, the Investigation Wing of the Department conducted a search and survey action under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the Sakseria Group of Companies which included the assessees situated on the 4th Floor of Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. The search extended over multiple days and encompassed various group entities and individuals associated with the Seksaria Group and their business concerns. During the course of the operation, certain Excel-based management information sheets were found and seized. These documents, according to the Department, contained notings suggestive of cash investment for acquisition of land at Agarsure. Statements of Mr. Nandkumar Kudilal Seksaria (NKS), and Mr. Tarun Sekseria (TNS) were recorded contemporaneously and in the days following the search, forming the bedrock of the Assessing Officer’s inference regarding unaccounted income in the case of Assessee.
In the case of Assessee, the Assessing Officer drawing primarily upon these excel statements which were found and seized on 07/10/2021 and based on the statements of TNS and NKS made additions under section 69A/69B.
The statements recorded during the course of the search are as under:
Sr. Deponent Statement Statement Q.Nos No. Recorded at dated 1 Tarun Sakseria 09.10.2021 Q1-Q 31 Nandkumar building, Seksaria Marine Drive, (TNS) Mumbai- 400020 3. Nandkumar Sakseria 11.10.2021 Q.1 to Q.30 Kudilal Building, Seksaria nagindas (NKS) master Road, Mumbai 400001. 4. Nandkumar Air India 04.04.2022 Q.1 to Q.12 Kudilal Building,(Inc
Seksaria ome Tax) (NKS)
The statement relates to Excel sheets, which were recovered from the laptop of Mr.Tarun Sakseria [TNS], which indicated notings pertaining to lands situated at Kolgaon, Dhokawade, Agarsure and Dapoli. The statement of TNS was recorded on each of these excel sheet pertaining to these various land parcels under section 132[4] on 9.10.2021.
The current appeals concern and arises from the statement pertaining to lands at Agarsure, which are acquired by the Assessee, TNS has stated in response to Q 24 that the total application of money accounted in books is Rs.21.69 crores and as per the actual application it is Rs.36.16 crores and the difference of Rs 14.47 crores is the cash payment made out of books of accounts for acquisition of Agarsure Land. Further, TNS has also mentioned that cash component was derived from release of rights and grant of NOC from the Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd land parcels in Mira Bhayander and the quantum of cash generation would be explained by Mr. Nandkumar Seksaria.
Thereafter, the statement of Mr. Nandkumar Sakseria [NKS], who is the main person in charge of the Sakseria Group was recorded under section 134[4]. In Q No 20 he was asked for his comments on the statement of TNS, to which he has stated that he has to verify the facts provided by TNS and sought more time.
Thereafter, the statement of NKS was recorded post search by the ACIT under Section 131 of the Act at Room No. 2007A, 20th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 on January 4, 2022. In the statement recorded on January 4, 2022, NKS, inter alia, stated as under:
In Q11, NKS was asked to comment on the statement of TNS, on the excel statement seized, wherein TNS had stated that cash derived from rights/grants of NOC was deployed for purchase of various land parcels.
In response to the same, NKS stated that ‘since Tarun has been suffering from various illness from time to time, to keep him busy, I assigned him with the task of land acquisition in Alibaug. All our land dealings were coordinated by local aggregator Late Pratap Gambhir. To the best of my knowledge these excel statements are estimates of the cost and profits and projections as prepared by Late Pratap Gambhir’. As mentioned to your good self above, occasionally some quantity of cash may have come from release of rights in eksali lands and may have been given to Pratap Gambhir’ 12 Both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements vide letters dated 22nd December 2022 & 7th February, 2023 and form part of the paper book.
Analysis of the above statements
One crucial point to be noted from the perusal of the statement of TNS is that he has clearly mentioned that the amount invested in Agarsure land was sourced from Estate Investment and he is not aware of the quantum of such generated by Estate, which will be explained by his father, NKS. NKS, on being confronted with the statement of TNS regarding cash investment in various land parcels, has categorically stated that TNS was unwell and further denied that these excel sheet records payment of cash and stated that these excel sheets are mere estimates of the costs and profits and projections prepared by Mr. Pratap Gambhir (PDG).
13.1. Both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements vide letters dated 22nd December 2022 & 7th February, 2023 and form part of the paper book.
13.2. The retractions of NKS and TNS have been rejected by AO on the ground of delay. The ld. AO, in his elaborate order, narrated that during the course of the search proceedings, multiple diaries and loose sheets were found, each containing cryptic entries in the form of initials, figures, and occasional remarks. These entries, according to the Assessing Officer, chronicled cash investment made by the assessee for acquisition of lands at Agarsure. On this premise, the Assessing Officer held that the said payment represented unaccounted investment in land and, therefore, treated them as unexplained investment under section 69A/69B of the Act.
Based on this reasoning, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A/69B of Rs 4,20,070. These addition were founded almost exclusively on the notings in the excel sheets found in the computer of TNS and the statement of TNS under section 1342[4].
14.1. No independent verification was made from the counterparties purportedly reflected in the respective purchase agreement for purchase of Agarsure Land, nor were any corroborative documents or contemporaneous records unearthed to substantiate the alleged cash outflows. The Assessing Officer, nevertheless, inferred a pattern of some stray notings in the diaries found in the case of Estate which purported to be payments to PDG, who was the land aggregator for the Sakseria Group.
14.2. The statement of Mr.Pawan Sharma, who was the accountant of Estate and who has maintained these diaries was retracted 0n 22nd December, 2022 and the statements of TNS and NKS were later retracted on 22nd December, 2022 7th February, 2023 respectively during the assessment proceedings of the assessee.
Findings of CIT(A)
When the matter travelled in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”], the assessee vehemently contested both the factual premise and the legal tenability of the additions under section 69A/69B . It was submitted that the entire edifice of the assessment rested upon the statement of TNS under section 132[4], which was retracted later. It was further urged that the statements recorded under section 132(4) lacked credibility, as they were subsequently retracted with cogent reasons, and that no corroborative evidence whatsoever was found during the search neither cash, nor unaccounted assets so as to lend authenticity to the inferences drawn by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also emphasized that in any case the statement of TNS was debunked by the statement of NKS who was in charge of the whole group where he has categorically mentioned that no cash were paid and the statement merely showed estimation of the increase in the market values of these land parcels which was prepared as a MIS statement for analyzing the potential of the investment made in the land.
The learned CIT(A), after a detailed consideration of the rival submissions and the seized material. The CIT(A) however ignored the fact that the statements of TNS had been debunked by NKS and therefore were contradictory and further ignored the fact that the statement of TNS and NKS were retracted. The CIT[A] has also not pondered over the AOs action in not obtaining any third-party confirmations. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, confirmed the addition of Rs4,20,070 under section 69A/69B.
The Assessee have contested the addition which was confirmed by the CIT(A) either substantively or in principle. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
Ground No. 1
This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the order of DCIT in reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, which according to assessee was without jurisdiction.
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that this ground No.1 is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012-13 in dated 28.10.2025and the operative portion of the order is reproduced here in below:
“41.Having disposed of the additions of merits, we now turn to legal ground concerning the validity of the assessment itself. Upon the submissions and the judicial precedents, especially of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is a binding precedent on us, we are persuaded that the reassessment edifice is untenable on two independent yet converging grounds. The assessee has assailed the reassessment orders on two principal planks first, that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, in contravention of the scheme notified under section 151A vide Notification S.O. 1466(E) dated 29th March 2022; since the assessment order does not bears Document Identification Number (DIN), the same is non est as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019. On the first issue, thelegal position is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)) has decisively explained that where Parliament and the delegated notification have assigned jurisdiction to the faceless unit, the jurisdiction of the local officer stands eclipsed. The scheme does not contemplate a concurrent or overlapping authority. Any notice issued dehors the faceless framework is coram non-judice and the proceeding is void at inception. The exposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is coram non judice and consequently void ab initio. 42….. 43….. 44….. 45….. 46…..
47 Having held so, it necessarily follows that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in violation of the Faceless Scheme under section 151A and compounded by the failure to generate and quote a valid DIN, stand vitiated in law. The dualbreaches one jurisdictional, the other procedural strike at the root of the assessment's validity. The notice under section 148, having been issued by an officer not authorised under the notified scheme, is coram non judice, and the subsequent order passed without a valid DIN is a nullity. This conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)). The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, both for want of jurisdiction and for breach of mandatory procedural require.
The third legal infirmity relates to the manner in which the impugned notice dated 27.01.2023 has been issued under section 148. The AO has issued the notice under section 148. on the ground that the search was conducted on the assesse despite the fact that no search was ever conducted on the assesse. The reliance on the full bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd Farhan A Sheik (125 taxmann.com 253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective.”
After going through the decision of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra) we found that the facts of the present case are identical and are arising out of the same search. Therefore while following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom), which has also been consistently followed by the same court Capital G LP Vs. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah Vs. ITO, [2024] 468 ITR 350(Bom), and Ganesh Nivrutii Jagatap Vs. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 168 (Bom), thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutory vested in the faceless AO, any notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO is coram non judice and consequently void ab initioi.
More over in the present case also the impugned notice has been issued u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that the search was conducted on the assessee despite the fact that no search was ever conducted on the assessee, therefore the coordinate Bench while relying upon the decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaik, 125 taxmann.com 253, held the notice to be defective.
Since the facts of the present case are also identical and pertains to the same search and in the absence of any contrary authority or distinguishing factual matrix, we are bound to follow the consistent line of judicial precedents emanating from the decision of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case. Nothing has been placed on record in order to demonstrate that the said decision has been stayed, modified or reversed by Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly and respectfully following the principles of judicial discipline and judicial consistency we order accordingly. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Ground No. 2, this ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,05,61,242/- u/s 69A / 69B of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that this ground No.1 is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012-13 in dated 28.10.2025 and the operative portion of the order is reproduced here in below:
“36. We have heard rival contentions, perused the voluminous records and relevant finding given in the impugned orders. In the issue relating to taxability of unaccounted investment in Agarsure land, the AO has completely relied on the statements of TNS who had alleged to have explained entries in the Agarsure excel sheet found during the search on Estate. From a deep scrutiny of the statements it is discerned that the statement of TNS was contradicted by NKS who is the key person involved with land dealings. Further, NKS pointed out that the said sheet was prepared by PDG, which is evident on a plain reading of this excel sheet also and the same was estimate of cost and profits and projection. NKS has further stated that TNS was not in good health and to keep him busy he was assigned with the task of land acquisition. No further statement of NKS was recorded on this issue. Further, the statement of TNS was considered only in part. The AO ignored the statement where TNS has stated that the cash was sourced from Estate. The AO has not recorded the statement of TNS in respect of various other entries found in the excel sheet. Thus, this statement per se cannot lead to conclusion that notings in the excel sheet prepared by PDG in his individual capacity as MIS statement can lead to adverse inference in so far as assessee company is concerned that they paid cash towards acquisition of land.
Another important fact is that both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements before the learned Assessing Officer. The reasons for such retraction were that they were not even aware that their statements would be used against the assessee company, particularly when the seized excel sheet were not prepared by any Director or employee of the assessee company. When statements have been retracted with cogent and plausible reasons, the law casts a corresponding duty on the Assessing Officer to summon those persons, confront them with their earlier statements, and subject them to cross-examination. Such procedural safeguard, as repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions cited before us by learned counsel, is not a matter of indulgence but a sine qua non of natural and fair adjudication.
The mere discovery of excel sheet which are not even prepared by the directors of the assessee company and remain uncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the authorship and authenticity of such documents are in dispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search, may record statements or seized documents; however, the same are merely inputs for further enquiry. Once the material is transmitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, it becomes incumbent upon him to apply his own independent mind and conduct proper enquiry to determine whether such statements or seized documents can lawfully lead to any addition.
The Assessing Officer cannot act as a mere forwarding agent of the report or view expressed by the Investigation Wing and mechanically incorporate the same in his assessment order without exercising his own judgment as to whether such information or view can legitimately form the foundation of an addition within the four corners of law. At best, the information and material emanating from the Investigation Wing may serve as a trigger or starting point to issue a show-cause notice and seek an explanation from the assessee. But once the assessee has rebutted those materials including any recorded statement with cogent reasons, the Assessing Officer must judiciously evaluate such explanation and undertake at least a prima facie enquiry to test the correctness of the rebuttal and strengthen the evidentiary base of the material relied upon.
39.1. If he fails to do so, sustaining any addition solely on the basis of such material gathered from the search cannot be justified. In the present case, the statements and documents relied upon by the Department have been effectively rebutted and controverted with cogent reasoning, as elaborated in detail above. The Assessing Officer, functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, is bound to apply his mind independently and adjudicate the issue in a fair and reasoned manner.
39.2. The presumption under section 132(4A) is, at best, a limited and rebuttable presumption applicable only in the context of seizure and custody, and cannot, by itself, elevate a private employee's scribblings into proof of income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer's reliance on extrapolation to make addition in each year extending the inference drawn from a uncorroborated excel sheet amounts more to conjecture than to judicial reasoning.
This concern is further magnified when the foundation on which the said addition was made ie. Statement of TNS has been retracted and no further examination or cross: verification has been undertaken. In light of these circumstances, the very evidentiary substratum of the additions evaporates, leaving behind nothing but suspicion. The Assessing Officer's approach of brushing aside the retractions as afterthoughts, without testing their veracity through examination or cross-questioning, constitutes a serious procedural infirmity.
40.1. This infirmity is all the more pronounced in the present case because the seized material is neither self- explanatory nor independently corroborated. The Assessing Officer's duty extends beyond mere reproduction of search findings; he must verify the surrounding facts and determine whether any such statements or diary notings are supported by independent evidence. Yet, in this case, he did not examine any of the persons purportedly involved in the alleged NOC transactions, nor did he summon the supposed payers of cash whose names appeared in the diaries.
40.2. At the very least, there should have been some independent corroborative material such as bank statements, agreements, receipts, or documents evidencing any actual cash transaction or confirmation brought on record. The entire addition has been founded upon untested statements and cryptic notings. Such a method of assessment, built on conjecture and devoid of corroboration, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. An addition resting purely on suspicion and unsupported inference is antithetical to the settled principles of evidentiary assessment and the doctrine of fair adjudication.
40.3. We therefore hold that the Assessing Officer, in relying solely upon unverified excel sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. The seized excel sheet, as earlier discussed, are incapable of interpretation without contextual evidence, and the statements upon which reliance was placed stand nullified by valid retraction. The confluence of these infirmities absence of corroboration, failure to summon and cross- examine, and the intrinsic vagueness of the documents compels us to conclude that the additions made towards alleged capital gains and unexplained money are devoid of factual and legal foundation. In the result, the additions sustained under the head "Unexplained Investment U/s 69A/69B amounting to Rs.4,20,070 under section 69A/69B which has been confirmed in principle, cannot be upheld and are hereby deleted. The Orders passed by the CIT[Appeals] are accordingly reversed.”
After having gone through the facts of the present case and analyzing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case we found that since the facts of the present case are also identical and pertains to the same search and in the absence of any contrary authority or distinguishing factual matrix, we are bound to follow the consistent line of judicial precedents emanating from the decision of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case. Nothing has been placed on record in order to demonstrate that the said decision has been stayed, modified or reversed by Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly and respectfully following the principles of judicial discipline and judicial consistency we order accordingly and direct the additions to be deleted. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 3218/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15 3219/Mum/2025, A.Y 2016-17 3217/Mum/2025, A.Y 2018-19
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2013-14 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 28/11/2025 Disha Raut, Stenographer आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई