VIKRAM SAJANLAL CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Assessment Year: 2015-16

Ashish Shashikant Choksi,
68, Manglik Presidency Society,
JVPD Scheme, 7th N S Road, Vile
Parle West,
Mumbai-400049. Vs.
Asst. CIT Central Circle-6(2),
Room No. 450, 4th floor, Kautilya
Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra
East,
Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AEBPC 1539 B

Appellant
Respondent
Assessment Year: 2015-16

Sidharth Abhay Choksi,
24th floor, 2404, Indiabulls Sky,
Plot 882 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Jupiter Mill Compound, Delisle
Road,
Mumbai-400013. Vs.
Asst. CIT Central Circle-6(2),
Room No. 450, 4th floor, Kautilya
Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra
East,
Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ACWPC 5349 J

Appellant
Respondent
Assessment Year: 2015-16

Tanu Gautam Choksi,
Seamont 2201, Walkeshwar
Road, Near Raj Bhavan, Malabar
Hill, S.O.
Mumbai-400006. Vs.
Asst. CIT Central Circle-6(2),
Room No. 450, 4th floor, Kautilya
Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra
East,
Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AFDPC 0409
Appellant
I
A Vikram Sajanlal Choks
68 Mangalik Pres enc
JVPO Scheme, 7th N S
Parle West,
Mumbai-400049. PAN NO. ADPKC 8062
Appellant
I
A Gaurav Abhay Choksi,
191-A, Grand Paradi A August Kranti Marg, D
Hill,
Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. ACSPC 9907
Appellant
I
A GAUTAM ASHOK CHO
Seamont 2201 Walkesh
Near Raj Bhavan, Mala
S.O Mumbai
MUMBAI 400006
PAN NO. AABPC 5917
Appellant
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

9 H

Respondent
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Bhavan, C-41 to C
Bandra Kurla Com
East,
Mumbai-400051. 2 F

Respondent
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Bhavan, C-41 to C
Bandra Kurla Com
East,
Mumbai-400051. 7 C

Respondent
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Bhavan, C-41 to C
Bandra Kurla Com
East,
Mumbai-400051. 7 B

Respondent hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
2
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
Circle-6(2), floor, Kautilya
-43, G Block, mplex, Bandra
Circle-6(2), floor, Kautilya
-43, G Block, mplex, Bandra
Circle-6(2), floor, Kautilya
-43, G Block, mplex, Bandra

I
A VISHWAS SHASHIKAN
68MANGALIK PRES SOCIE , JVPO SCHEM
7TH N S ROADVILE PA
WEST
MUMBAI 400049
PAN NO. AABPC 7934
Appellant
Assessee by Revenue by Date of Heari
Date of pronounc
PER BENCH

These appeals against separate ord
Commissioner of Inc
Ld. CIT(A)’ for assess
2. In all these app therefore, same were consolidated order fo
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Bhavan, C-41 to C
Bandra Kurla Com
East,
Mumbai-400051. 4 Q

Respondent y
:
Mr. Ajay Singh,
Mr. Akshay Pawar y
:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yada ing
:
22/09/2025
cement
:
26/11/2025

ORDER by the respective assessee(s ders dated 31.12.2024 passed come-tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumb ment year 2015-16 respectively peal common issue in dispute heard together and disposed of or the sake of convenience, tak hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
3
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
Circle-6(2), floor, Kautilya
-43, G Block, mplex, Bandra av, CIT-DR s) are directed by the Ld. Ld.
bai [in short ‘the .
is involved and ff by way of this king the case of Ashish Shashikant C decision of the said c cases.
2.1 The grounds ra
1341/Mum/2025 we dated 30.05.2025. T under:
1. The CIT (A the Act witho neither any in found in rega under conside during the c
1,34,69,754/
be deleted.
2. Further the furnished the recorded duri for during the same are pa perused by th
Addition of Rs
3. The ld.
1,34,69,754/
Sale Conside unexplained documents a assessment a additions oug
4 The Ld. CI treating the s
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

Choksi as the lead case. The par case may be applied mutatis mu aised by the assessee in app ere revised by the assessee b
The said revised grounds are A) erred in upholding the assessment u/
out appreciating that during the course ncriminating documents/papers/evidence rds to sale of shares of PMC Fincorp Ltd f eration nor any adverse points has bee course of search, therefore the addit
-is illegal, invalid, bad-in law and the sa e Ld. CIT (A) erred in stating that appella e copies of panchnamas or statement of ing the search proceedings which were n e entire appellate proceedings without pr art of assessment records which ough he Id CIT(A) before adjudicating the matte s. 1,34,69,754/- under section 68 of the A CIT(A) erred in confirming the addit
- under section 68 of the Act, by treating eration on Sale of Shares of PMC Finc
Cash Credit without taking the cogniza and submissions made during the and appellate proceedings respectively, th ght to be deleted.
CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of said shares as Penny Script as per the hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
4
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
rties agreed that utandis in other peal in ITA No.
by way of letter reproduced as /s. 153A of e of search, e have been for the year en observed tion of Rs.
ame should ant has not of appellant never called rejudice the ht to have r.
Act.
ion of Rs.
g the entire corp Ltd as ance of the course of herefore the Ld. AO by information received from 26.02.2021 p were allegedl
Fincorp Ltd, connected wi sale transacti ought to be de
5. The Ld. CIT providing the whose statem addition of sa
Ld. AO has n such erroneo information re statement of SEBI, therefor
3. Briefly stated, t individual, derives
Gains”, and “Incom consideration, he file a total income of ₹
seizure action under Act”) was carried ou
Platinum Group, whic assessee. Pursuant t was issued and the a 11.10.2019. 3.1 During the asses noted that the asses
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

m DGIT (inv) Lucknow and relying on o passed by the SEBI against some ent ly involved in manipulating the share pri without appreciating the fact that appe ith PMC Fincorp Pvt Ltd and all the pur ions was through stock exchange, therefo eleted.
IT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. A opportunity to cross examine Mr. Raj K ment has been relied upon for making the ale consideration of Shares of PMC Finco not made any independent enquiry befo ous addition and has merely relied eceived from Investigation Wing Lucknow director of PMC Fin Corp Ltd and orders re addition be deleted.
the facts of the case are that th income under the heads “Sa e from Other Sources”. For t d his return of income on 18.08
₹2,25,60,490/-. Subsequently, section 132 of the Income-tax t on 24.08.2018 in the case of ch also covered the residential thereto, notice under section 1
assessee filed a return of income sment proceedings, the Assessin ssee had sold shares of M/s PM hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
5
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
order dated tities which ices of PMC ellant is not rchase and ore addition
AO without
Kumar Modi e erroneous orp Ltd. The fore making upon the w, copies of s passed by he assessee, an alary”, “Capital the year under 8.2015 declaring a search and Act, 1961 (“the f the Hindustan premises of the 153A of the Act e in response on ng Officer (“AO”)
PMC Fincorp Ltd.

(earlier Priti Mercant gain was treated b accommodation entri section 68 of the Act credit.
4. In appeal befo challenge to the ad material pertaining during the search. T merits. However, the and the substantive further appeal before
5. We first take u the very juri iction
153A in the absence search. The law in t the judgment of the Abhisar Buildwell Pv been held that in res be made only on the search. Thus, either
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

tile Ltd.), and the resultant lo by the AO as a bogus gain ies. The AO, therefore, made an treating the sale proceeds as un ore the CIT(A), the assessee ddition on the ground that n to such share transactions h
The assessee also contested t first appellate authority rejecte grounds. Aggrieved thereby, th e us.
p the legal grounds. Ground N to make the impugned addition e of any incriminating materia this regard now stands conclus
Hon’ble Supreme Court in PC vt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) spect of unabated assessments basis of incriminating material fo r of the following two conditio hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
6
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
ong-term capital n arising from n addition under nexplained cash raised a legal o incriminating had been found the addition on ed both the legal he assessee is in No. 1 challenges n under section al found during sively settled by CIT (Central)-3 v.
, wherein it has s, additions can ound during the ons must hold:

(i) the assessment is (ii) incriminating mat
5.1In the present ca
The time-limit for iss on 30.09.2016. There assessment proceedin was thus unabated.
have been made only during the search.
6. The central iss material pertaining
Fincorp Ltd. was foun
6.1 The learned cou the assessment ord submitted that neithe relating to the impug
AO himself has not 03.02.2021 that, from that exempt long-te claimed. Similarly, in that “from the record
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

pending on the date of search terial is found qua the addition m se, the assessee filed his return suance of notice under section efore, on the date of search on ngs were pending. The assessm
Consequently, the impugned y if supported by incriminating sue, therefore, is whether any to the impugned share transa nd during the course of the sear unsel for the assessee invited o der as well as the order of t er authority has referred to any gned share transactions. On th ted in the notice under sectio m the financials of the assessee, erm capital gains of ₹61,07,8
n para 4 of the assessment orde ds” it was noticed that the ass hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
7
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
(i.e., abated), or made.
n on 18.08.2015. n 143(2) expired
24.08.2018, no ent for this year addition could g material found y incriminating actions of PMC rch.
our attention to the CIT(A), and y seized material he contrary, the on 142(1) dated it was observed
84/- had been er, the AO states sessee had sold shares of PMC Fin primarily on an in (Investigation), Luckn beneficiaries of alleg that this information assessee, and theref for the purposes of se
6.3 During the hea time to verify from incriminating materia
PMC share transact such material was pr
6.4 The learned DR legal and factual asp statement of Shri Raj
SEBI order dated 2
unearthed in the PM and documents seize constitute incrimina during his search.
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

ncorp Ltd. Further, the addit nformation report received fr now, stating that the assessee ged accommodation entries. It n was not recovered during the fore cannot constitute “incrimin ection 153A.
aring on 07.08.2025, the learn the field authorities regardi al, if any, found during search p tions. However, despite such o roduced before us.
R filed a written submission trav pects. While the Revenue has re ajkumar Modi during search in 26.02.2021, (iii) the general m
C group, and (iv) the existence ed from the assessee, we find th ating material qua the asses hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
8
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
ion is founded rom the DGIT was one of the t is undisputed e search on the nating material”
ned DR sought ng the specific pertaining to the opportunity, no versing both the lied upon (i) the his case, (ii) the modus operandi of certain books at none of these ssee discovered

r was passed much after the se nal input; and the statement of ceedings in his own case. Merely the transactions were found do on “incriminating” unless the s counted income or a falsity present case, the transactio external investigation reports, seized material. The Ld. DR the legal as well as merit of the der:
e, Shri Ashish Choksi, along with severa ded in shares of M/s PMC Fincorp Ltd. d
Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the tr s was part of a larger modus opera bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LT during a search conducted in the cas nd its operator,
Shri
Rajkumar
M ar Modi, the director of PMC Fincorp Ltd., a accommodation entries, including bogu ed the modus operandi in detail. The SEBI's order dated 26.02.2021, which co ties involved in the trading of PMC Finc pulated the share prices through circular flating the share price for tax evasion purp d upon the SEBI order dated 26.02.2021
ved in price manipulation of PMC Finc
Panchanama drawn during the course o ds seizure of the assessee's books of hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
9
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
earch; the DGIT f Shri Rajkumar y because books oes not, in law, seized document not otherwise on is rendered none of which R filed written e addition which al family during AY rading in randi for TCG), as e of the Modi, on admitted us LTCG,
AO also oncluded corp Ltd.
r trading, poses.
1 against corp Ltd.
of search accounts and documen sheets) at Pag
107 of the as material. Fur financial dea search, subst
In this case, invest in the stated in the on his own in to 7 family me
Similarly, in t of PMC Finc increase in p the company.
The Hon'ble B
Pr. CIT [2018]
transactions nominal price justification, unaccounted and such gai
10(38). Apply was fully just to tax under that the Hon'
made by the A In the presen upon the inf materials, an that the LTCG transaction an utterly failed record, and demonstrating artificial gain.
Further, it is Director of PM search procee
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

nts, as specifically enumerated in Annex ge No. 105 and Annexure A (1 sheet) at P ssessee's paperbook. Clearly reveal incri rther, details relating to investments an alings were also unearthed during the c tantiating the findings of the Assessing Of not one but 7 members suddenly de shares of this company. Since, the asse submission that the investment is mad nstinct, how the same instinct could have embers at the same time remains a myste the present case, the appellant purchased corp Ltd. and sold them at an extra rice, which is not supported by the fina
Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchan
] 89 taxmann.com 196 has categorically h in penny stock shares, where purchase e and sale at exorbitant prices without an are dubious transactions meant to i income in the guise of Long Term Capita ins are not eligible for exemption unde ying the ratio of this binding precedent, tified in bringing the impugned sale consi
Section 68.It is therefore respectfully s
'ble ITAT may be pleased to uphold the AO and dismiss the appeal of the assesse nt case, the Assessing Officer has right formation from received Lucknow DGIT nd statements of Rajkumar Modi have e
G claimed by the appellant is nothing but nd a mere device to evade tax. The appe to rebut the incriminating materials bro there exists ample documentary g clear price manipulation and gener
.
relevant to note that Shri Rajkumar M
MC Fincorp Ltd., had initially admitted du edings that the company and its related o hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
10
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
xure A (2
Page No.
iminating nd other course of fficer.
ecided to esse has de purely occurred ery.
d shares aordinary ancials of d Jain v.
held that e is at a ny cogent introduce al Gains, r section , the AO ideration ubmitted addition ee.
tly relied
T, search establish t a sham llant has ought on evidence ration of Modi, the uring his operators were engaged bogus LTCG,
Subsequently claiming that depression, m
Importantly, contemporane hospital reco furnished to condition. It i search, witho a categorical has strong ev
It is submitte
153A of the I empowers the for any asses carried out, i found for eve does not re discovered fo examine the relevant years
The assesse opportunity to PMC Fincorp
Assessing Of settled that component of justice, under that the as opportunity t record relied cross-examina law. Reliance v. ACIT [65 I
High Court jud
Customs AIR requires that examination.
Natural justic
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

d in providing accommodation entries, i and had explained the modus operandi y, on 27.10.2018, he filed a retraction a t his earlier statement was made unde mentally and physically breakdown.
this retraction was unsupported eous documentary evidence. No medical ords, or other corroborative materia o substantiate the alleged mental/
is well settled in law that a bald retract out credible supporting evidence, cannot statement made under oath u/s 132(4
videntiary value.
ed that the assessment framed under Income-tax Act is valid and legal. Secti e Assessing Officer to assess income of ssment year when a search or seizure ope irrespective of whether incriminating ma ery particular transaction. The statutory m equire that incriminating evidence m or each transaction; the AO is empow entire financial position of the assessee s covered by the search.
ee has contended that he was den o cross-examine Shri Rajkumar Modi, Di
Ltd., whose statement was relied upon fficer in making the addition. The law the right of formal cross-examination f natural justice under the Income-tax Act r the doctrine of audi alteram partem, sessee should have a fair and rea to see, comment, and criticise the evid upon by the AO. It does not mandate ation as per the procedural rules of a e is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Indust
ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the dgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector
R 1967 Cal 80, held that: "No natura t there should be a kind of forma
Formal cross- examination is procedura ce certainly includes that any stateme hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
11
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
including in detail.
affidavit, er stress, by any l reports, als were /physical tion after override
4), which r Section ion 153A a person eration is aterial is mandate must be wered to e for the nied the irector of n by the w is well is not a t. Natural requires asonable dence or a formal
Court of tries Ltd.
Calcutta r of Land al justice al cross- al justice.
ent of a person before somebody el whether it be does not ma witness prov examination m collateral or requirement fo
Allahabad Hi
[293 ITR 56
examination o is not require of rough cas provided to th replies. The opportunity t was valid.
In the instan
Rajkumar Mo appellant wa replies and proceedings.
of the collater
PMC Fincorp was no requ cross-examina to comment a requirements
7. Having considered that the Revenue has f relating to the impugned the assessee. It is well reflecting recorded trans se. The incriminatory ch themselves reveal undis nature of the transactio
Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

re it is accepted against somebody el lse should have an opportunity of m e by way of interrogation or by way of c atter. "The Tribunal further clarified th vides directly incriminating statements may be required; however, if the statem documentary in nature, there is n for cross- examination.
igh Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd
65]: The Court held that the right o of persons from whom AO has collected ed under the Income-tax law. In that cas h books and statements of partners h he assessee, and the assessee had subm
Court held that this constituted a to controvert the material, and the ass nt matter, all the relevant statements odi were part of the assessment records, as aware of and had the opportunity to submissions during assessment and a The statement relied upon by the AO fo ral evidence establishing the modus ope
Ltd. and its manipulation of share price uirement under law for the AO to allow ation, as the appellant had adequate opp and rebut the materials, thereby satisf of natural justice.”
d the rival submissions, we are of th failed to demonstrate that any incri d share transactions was found dur l settled that the mere presence o actions cannot be treated as incrimin haracter arises only if the books or sclosed income. In the present cas on surfaces only when read in con hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
12
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
lse, that eeting it comment hat if a s, cross- ments are no legal d. v. CIT of cross- evidence e, copies had been mitted its adequate sessment of Shri and the o file its appellate rms part erandi of es. There w formal portunity fying the he considered view iminating material ring the search on of statutory books nating material per seized documents se, the suspicious njunction with the DGIT Investigation repo search conducted on pronouncement of the H addition made in this un of incriminating material
8. We find that th
26.01.2021 but said the search. Further, documents found as Book page 106 were addition of the cash opinion, merely book not itself incrimina incriminating only in Investigation Wing, L during the course o assessee and therefo in making addition in of any incriminating
The Legal ground acc

Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

ort — which concededly does not o the assessee. Thus, in light of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Bu nabated assessment year cannot surv l.
e Ld. DR has referred to the SE report was also not found durin according to the Ld. DR books s per Punchnama, which is ava e in the nature of the incrimi credit on sale of PMC Fincorp ks of accounts indicating said t ating material. That transa n view of information received
Lucknow, which is undisputedly of the search action at the p re, the ld Assessing Officer was n the year under consideration material found during the cours cordingly is allowed in favour of hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
13
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
originate from the the authoritative ildwell (supra), the vive in the absence
EBI order dated ng the course of of accounts and ailable on Paper inating qua the Ltd. But in our transaction, are action becomes from the DGIT y was not found premises of the s not unjustified without the aid se of the search.
the assessee.

assessee’s additional legal grou d statements recorded during s
A), we find that the CIT(A) rejec is that the assessee did not im. The finding of the Ld. CIT( d as under:
Del): (2015) 126 DTR 0130 (Del): (201
(Delhi): (2015) 234 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ0300
ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 0728 (Karnatka), (2023
m 399 (SC) Supreme Court of India Pr er of Income Tax central-3 Vs. A P.) Ltd.. Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mitt
) (2020) 121 taxmann.com 1000 (Mu
17) 88 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai-Trib that in the cvase of the appellant a carried out on 24.08.2018, therefore was unabated assessment year.
following the decision cited by o addition was required to be made thout any incriminating material. Ho appellate proceedings, the appellant h opies of panchnamas or statements hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
14
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
und alleging that search were not cted the ground t furnish such (A) on this legal nd that during ould be ant has Global
Bench), a High
5) 281
6) 380
(Delhi), uctions
KarHC
3) 149
rincipal
Abhisar tal Vs.
Mumbai- cle 12, b).
search e, A.Y.
Thus, y the during owever, has not of the appellant an the search p that inf act found during alternative a 10. The CIT(A), how were necessarily with been requisitioned fo existed. The relevan incorrect approach, w
10.1 We accordingly
However, since we h and held that the incriminating materi the addition and on and do not require ad
11. In view of the made under section held to be unsustai allowed on the legal g
12. In other appeals same set of facts an Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

nd other family members recorded proceedings from which it could be v there was no incriminating materia g the search proceedings. In absence argument taken by the appellant is reje wever, overlooked the fact that th hin the possession of the AO, or verifying whether any incrimi nt portion of the CIT(A)’s or which cannot be sustained.
y set aside this finding of the have already allowed the prima e addition is unsustainable al, all other grounds — both o n procedural issues — are ren djudication.
foregoing discussion, the imp
68 in the proceedings under inable in law. The appeal of ground.
s also identical grounds have nd circumstances and therefore hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
15
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
during verified al was of that ected.”
hese documents and could have inating material rder shows an CIT(A) as well.
ary legal ground e for want of on the merits of dered academic pugned addition section 153A is the assessee is been raised in e, following our finding in the case o applied mutatis muta
13. In the result, all Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 26/11/2025
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.

////

Ashish Shash
Abhay Choksi
Vikram Sajanla
Choksi, G
Vis
ITA No. 1341, 13
13

of Ashish Shashikant Choksi re andis in other cases.
l the appeals of the assessee are ced in the open Court on 26/ CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu hikant Choksi, Sicharth i, Tanu Gautam Choksi, al Choksi, Gaurav Abhay
Gautam Ashok Choksi &
shwas Shasikant Choksi
16
344, 1345, 1391, 1397,
398 & 1399/MUM/2025
esult of which is e allowed.
11/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai