EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J SMC’
BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.
A.Y
3230/Mum/2025
2015-16
3231/Mum/2025
2021-22

Govind Corporation
4th Floor, 139, Seksaria
Chambers,
Nagindas
Master Road, Fort
Mumbai – 400 001
Vs. DCIT, CC-8(1), Mumbai
PAN/GIR No. AADFG2152N
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

ITA No.
A.Y
3234/Mum/2025
2016-17
3235/Mum/2025
2017-18
3236/Mum/2025
2018-19

EI Beneficary Trust
4th Floor, 139, Seksaria
Chambers,
Nagindas
Master Road, Fort
Mumbai – 400 001
Vs. DCIT, CC-8(1), Mumbai
PAN/GIR No. AAATE6602L
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal, Adv. &
Shri Pankaj Jain, CA
Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Date of Hearing
19/08/2025
Date of Pronouncement
28/10/2025

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

2
आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH:

The present batch of appeals emanates from a series of assessment and reassessment orders passed pursuant to search and survey operations conducted in the group cases of The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd.[Estate] and its connected entities., [hereinafter referred to as the Sakseria
Group of Companies ] The appeals have been filed against separate order passed by ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai. Since the core issues, factual substratum, and legal contentions are substantially common across these years, therefore, are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. The appeals traverse multiple assessee‟s appeals for various assessment years aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–50,
Mumbai.
2. The addition is made as undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawade, where in addition has been made in the hands of following assesse and therefore all these appeals are being combined together:
Assessee
AY
ITA No.
Govind Corporation
2015-16
3230/Mum/2025
Govind Corporation
2021-22
3231/Mum/2025

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

3
EI Beneficiary Trust
2016-17
3234/Mum/2025
EI Beneficiary Trust
2017-18
3235/Mum/2025
EI Beneficiary Trust
2018-19
3236/Mum/2025

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

4
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 Dhokawade. 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.
7. 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
8. The statements recorded during the course of the search are as under:
Sr.
No.

Deponent

Statement
Recorded at Statement dated

Q.Nos

1
Tarun
Nandkumar
Seksaria
(TNS)
Sakseria building,
Marine
Drive,
Mumbai-
400020
09.10.2021
Q1-Q 31
2. Nandkumar
Kudilal
Sakseria
Building,
11.10.2021
Q.1 to Q.30

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

5
Seksaria
(NKS) nagindas master
Road,
Mumbai
400001. 3. Nandkumar
Kudilal
Seksaria
(NKS)
Air India
Building,
(Income
Tax)
04.04.2022
Q.1 to Q.12

6
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.
8.5. 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:
9. In Q 11, 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’
9.1. Both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements vide letters dated 22nd December, 2022 and 7th February, 2023

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

7
Analysis of the statement
10. 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 Dhokawade 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. TNS has also explained the source of this cash as being derived from granting of NOCs by Estate.
10.1. Most importantly, the person in charge of the Group affairs, NKS has categorically denied that the figures in Col „B
“are cash and has mentioned that these are estimates of the costs and profits and projections prepared by Mr.Pratap
Gambhir [PDG] and occasionally some cash may have come from release of rights in Eksali land of Estate. NKS in his statement has also mentioned that TNS was suffering from various ailments as was ill and therefore to keep him occupied
NKS had asked him to oversee the acquisitions of lands in Alibaug, which include the lands at Dhokawade belonging to the assessee.
10.2. Both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements vide letters dated 22nd December, 2022 and 7th February, 2023
during the course of assessment proceedings.
10.3. 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

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

8
remarks. These entries, according to the Assessing Officer, chronicled cash investment made by the assessee for acquisition of lands at various places, including Dhokawade.
On this premise, the Assessing Officer held that the said payment represented unaccounted investment and, therefore, treated them as unexplained investment under section 69A/69B of the Act.
10.4. Based on this reasoning, the Assessing Officer made additions under section 69A/69B of Rs.6,70,174 founded almost exclusively on the noting in the excel sheets found in the computer of TNS, the statement of TNS under section 1342[4].
10.5. No independent verification was made from the counterparties purportedly reflected in the respective purchase agreement for purchase of Dhokawade 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 which purported to be payments to PDG, who was the land aggregator for the Sekseria Group, entries in the excel sheet and the statement of TNS which was later retracted.
Findings of CIT (A)
11. 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 ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

9
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.
12. The learned CIT(A), after a detailed consideration of the rival submissions and the seized material, partly accepted the assessee‟s alternate contentions that, if at all any cash was invested, it was invested by Estate and therefore the benefit of telescoping was allowed. 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 that in principle the AO was right in making an addition under section 69A/69B but since the ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

10
assessee had explained the source, he has allowed telescoping to the extent of the addition of Rs.6,70,174 for AY 2015-16
13. The Assessee have contested the additions which were confirmed by the CIT(A) either substantively or in principle .
14. Similar addition has been made in in other assessment years and the summary of additions which have been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning which has been contested by the assessee before this Tribunal are as under:-
Sr.No Particulars
AY
69A/69B
1
Govind Corporation 2021-22
12,91,971
2
EI Beneficiary Trust 2016-17
1,67,540
3
EI Beneficiary Trust 2017-18
5,02,631
4
EI Beneficiary Trust 2018-19
3,90,935

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

11
containing a Excel sheets pertaining to purchase of land at Dhokawade and the statement of TNS/NKS as also other relevant documents, which were relied upon during the hearing. Copies of retraction statements are also filed.
17. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee opened his arguments with characteristic precision, asserting that the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated by a fundamental misconception of fact and law.
He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet, he stressed, was merely a statement to analyze the increase in the market values in these land parcels prepared by PDG, who was the land aggregator and this fact was specifically mentioned by NKS and was not at all cash paid by the assesse for purchase of these lands as mentioned by TNS in his statement. The AR also mentioned that TNS „s in his statement has stated that he was not aware of the quantum of „cash‟ generated and this would be explained by NKS and therefore the statement of NKS prevails over the statement of TNS. NKS in his statement has clearly stated that the statement was prepared by PDG stating the increase in market value of these lands. Consequently, the AR contended that in the absence of corroborative material or supporting evidence the reliance placed by the Assessing
Officer upon these excel sheets and the contradictory

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

12
statements of TNS and NKS , was wholly misplaced and is unsustainable in law.
18. The AR further pointed out that the only foundation on which the Assessing Officer sought to ascribe meaning to these noting in the excel sheet was the Statement of TNS recorded on 09/10/2021. The learned counsel invited our attention to the transcript of TNS‟s statement to demonstrate that it was riddled with conjecture and bereft of any factual basis. He emphasized that the Assessing Officer‟s action in cherry picking a part of the statement of TNS was an exercise that was, in his words, “factually perverse and legally impermissible.”
19. The learned counsel also reiterated his submission that the statement of TNS was of no real consequence as it had been categorically denied by NKS the principal person in charge of the company, in his statement dated 4th October,
2022 in Q no 11 where has stated that TNS had been suffering from various ailments and he had assigned him the job of coordinating with PDG for land and most importantly the figures in the excel sheets which were stated to be „cash‟
was in fact a comparison of the cost and projections of the profits[ market values] in these lands prepared by PDG. The AR also contended that in any case NKS had stated that ‘occasionally some cash may have come and given to PDG’
which does not mean that all the figures under Col „B‟ are cash as presumed by the AO.

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

13
20. The AR then highlighted that both TNS and NKS had formally retracted their statements during the course of assessment proceedings, through written communications dated 22nd December, 2022 and 7th February, 2023
respectively, giving cogent reasons for such retraction. Despite this, the Assessing Officer had summarily brushed aside these retractions, branding them as “afterthoughts,” without affording either individual an opportunity for cross- examination or further clarification. This, he contended, amounted to a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Once a statement is retracted, the law requires the Department to establish its truth through independent corroboration; in the absence of such corroboration, the statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition.
21. The AR pointed out that the AO did not bother to analyze and evaluate other entries in the excel sheet and merely considered the amount mentioned in excel sheet as cash investment by relying on the uncorroborated statement of TNS which was later retracted.
22. The AR also made without prejudice submission that AO has cherry picked the statement of TNS to suit his narrative.
Had the statement been fully considered, the AO would have been required to take cognizance of the fact that the cash investment was not made by the assesse and therefore no ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

14
addition could have been made in its hands. The AR vehemently argued that the Assessee has no capacity to generate cash and that the cash was never invested by the Assessee. The AR also pointed out that these facts have been duly accepted by the AO and CIT(A).
22.1. The AR also pointed out that this statement does not mention the years to which it pertains and the action of the AO to extrapolate the total to various assessment years on the basis of the amounts paid by Cheque is devoid of any logic or legal sanctity.
22.2. The learned Authorized Representative continued his submissions with a meticulous reference to jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries
Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman 358 (Bom)], where the Court had categorically held that a statement recorded during search cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence unless supported by independent material. In that case, as in the present one, the Assessing Officer had based additions merely on the confession of a third party without any corroboration, which was later retracted. The High Court, affirming the Appellate Tribunal, ruled that when a statement is retracted and no other evidence is adduced, such a statement cannot, by itself, justify the addition. The learned counsel submitted that the ratio of this judgment was directly applicable to the ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

15
present facts, where the Assessing Officer, resting solely on the statements of TNS, had proceeded to frame the assessment without any verification or corroboration from the alleged payers or any independent third-party evidence.
23. The learned AR next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh
Trading Co. v. CIT [(2012) 214 Taxman 262 (Jharkhand)], wherein it was held that though a statement recorded under section 132(4) constitutes evidence, its reliability and probative worth depend on the surrounding circumstances and corroboration. The Court observed that a bald statement, made without contemporaneous recovery of cash or assets and later retracted, could not be used to fasten liability.
Drawing a parallel, the learned counsel emphasised that in the assessee‟s case, no incriminating cash or valuables had been discovered in the course of search; yet, the Assessing
Officer had proceeded as though the excel sheet were self- proving instruments of truth. Such an approach, he argued, stood condemned by judicial authority.
24. The learned counsel further fortified his argument by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Chokshi v. CIT [(2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)], where it was held that an admission recorded under section 132(4), if retracted, cannot form the sole basis for addition unless supported by corroborative material. The High Court noted that statements extracted under stressful or coercive circumstances, particularly during search at odd hours, often lack voluntariness and hence must be treated with ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

16
circumspection. The learned AR submitted that this principle had been reiterated in several later pronouncements, including by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, and represents the settled position of law that mere confessional statements, in the absence of corroboration, are insufficient to sustain additions. He also drew our attention to the Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 2227/Mum/2024) decision, wherein this very Bench had, following the dictum of Harjeev Aggarwal (Delhi High Court) and Jagdish prasad Joshi
(Supreme Court), held that retracted statements under section 132(4) lose all probative value unless independently substantiated by evidence.
25. The learned counsel, to reinforce the argument, also referred to the official guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) itself specifically, Instruction No.
286/2/2003 dated 10th March 2003 and the subsequent
Circular F. No. 286/98/2013 dated 18th December 2014
both of which explicitly caution the Department against obtaining confessions of undisclosed income during search or survey operations. These circulars direct that assessments must be founded upon material evidence rather than unverified admissions. The counsel submitted that these instructions, being binding on the revenue authorities under section 119 of the Act, constitute a clear administrative mandate that confessional statements, without corroboration, are not to be made the sole foundation of assessment. He therefore urged that the action of the Assessing Officer in the present case anchoring the entire addition upon the retracted

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

17
statements of TNS was in flagrant violation not only of settled judicial doctrine but of the Board‟s own directives.
26. The learned Authorised Representative then turned to what he termed the “central infirmity” of the entire assessment the treatment of the seized excel sheet as conclusive documentary evidence. He contended that even if, arguendo, the statements under section 132(4) were to be disregarded or viewed with circumspection, the excel sheets themselves, in the absence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb documents” incapable of independent evidentiary value. They were not part of the books of account, bore no authentication, and were admittedly prepared by PDG and not by any of the Directors of the assessee. The presumption under section 132(4A), he submitted, applies only to documents found to “belong to” the assessee and does not extend to the private MIS statements of an outsider like PDG .
It was emphasized that the Department itself had not demonstrated that the seized excel sheets were maintained under the assessee‟s instruction or supervision and on the contrary a plain reading of the statements also indicate that these were not prepared by them as the words‟ Total land acquisition Proposed’ would not have been mentioned had the statement been prepared by the assessee. The Pointed out that this fact corroborates with the statement of NKS that this statement was prepared by PDG.
27. In support of this proposition, the learned AR drew strength from the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla &

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

18
Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 247–256 of 1998], wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries, not being books of account regularly kept in the course of business, are not admissible evidence under section 34 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The Court observed that entries made by one person in such documents, unless corroborated by independent evidence, cannot fasten liability on another. This, the AR submitted, was directly applicable to the present case, where the Assessing Officer sought to tax the assessee on the strength of the personal notings of PDG, without establishing authorship, authenticity, or relevance. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common
Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [(2017) 394
ITR 220 (SC)] the celebrated “Birla–Sahara Diaries” case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever.
28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the juri ictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the “dumb document” principle. Reference was made to Principal
CIT v. Umesh Ishrani [(2019) 108 taxmann.com 437
(Bom)], where the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal‟s finding that rough, unauthenticated notings in seized diaries, unaccompanied by corroborative evidence, could not justify addition under sections 68 or 69A. He also drew our attention to Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v. DCIT
[(2015)
63
taxmann.com
66
(Bom)], and DCIT v.
Padmashree
Dr.
D.Y.
Patil
University
[(2024) taxmann.com 353 (Mum Trib)], both reiterating that such scribbled records, unless validated through substantive inquiry, are mere dumb documents. The AR thus submitted that the legal landscape on this issue is unequivocal: dumb documents, being self-serving, incomplete, or untested, cannot by themselves be a foundation for addition, particularly when the statements accompanying them have been retracted and no further corroboration is forthcoming.
29. Having thus traversed the legal authorities, the learned
AR concluded that the entire assessment was built on conjecture and surmise. The Assessing Officer, he submitted, had not summoned or examined any of the alleged receivers of cash or payers of cash, though their details were available.
No corroboration, direct or circumstantial evidence was adduced; and yet, the assessee was visited with enormous additions merely on the strength of what were, at best, an MIS statement or a loose sheet. To uphold such additions, he urged, would be to elevate suspicion to the level of proof, an approach that has been consistently disapproved by Courts.
The learned AR therefore prayed that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) under section 69A/69B be deleted in toto, and that the assessment itself, founded on invalid notice and defective notice, be declared void ab initio.
30. On the legal grounds, the summary of the ld. Counsel submissions are as under:-
A)
Notice issued by the juri ictional Assessing officer instead of faceless Assessing officer

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

20
(i)
The AR also pointed out that the notice under section 148
was issued by juri ictional Assessing officer in contravention of Section 151A of the Act & the scheme frame thereafter and therefore the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.
(ii)
The AR argued that as per the scheme formulated vide
Notification S.O1466 (E)(18/2022) dated March 29, 2022 (“the Scheme”) issued under section 151A of the Act, the notice under section 148 of the Act could only have been issued in a faceless manner.
(iii) The AR further argued that as per section 151A of the Act, read with the scheme, any notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued only in terms of the said scheme and in a faceless manner. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside.
(iv)
The AR relied on the following juri ictional and non- juri ictional high court / Tribunal decisions:

a.
Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024]
464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC)

Notice under section 148 was issued by Juri ictional
Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment.
The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent juri iction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific juri iction hasbeen assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

21
29th March, 2022, then it is to the exclusion of the other. To take any other view in the matter would not only result in chaos but also render the whole faceless proceedings redundant. If the argument of revenue is to be accepted, then even when notices are issued by the FAO, it would be open to an assessee to make submission before the JAO and vice versa, which is clearly not contemplated in the Act and accordingly and therefore issue of notice is bad in law.

The above decision of Hexaware was followed by the coordinate bench of Bombay High Court in the following cases:

i) Capital G LP V. ACIT (writ Petition (L) No. 15289 of 2024)
(Bombay HC) ii)
Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO reported in [2024] 468 ITR
350 (Bombay HC) iii)
Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap vs ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com
168 (Bombay) b.
The Supreme Court in the case of Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT
([SLP (C ) No. 18753/2025] (SC) has dismissed the SLP filed against the decision of Telangana High Court (Writ Petition
No. 23573 of 2024) regarding the validity of notice issued under section 148 by the JAO.
31. The Assessee further submitted that none of the above decisions have been stayed by Hon‟ Supreme Court and therefore the same has the binding force on the lower appellate authorities. In this connection the Assessee relies on ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

22
the decision of Juri ictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of India vs ACIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 422
(Bombay).
B. Defective notice issued under section 148 of the Act
The AR argued that the reassessment proceedings are invalid in law, as the notice issued under section 148 of the Income
Tax Act in the case of E I Resorts & Clubs Pvt Ltd. for AY
2012-2013 and 2020-2021 is fundamentally defective.
The AR pointed out that the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order has recorded the fact that no search under section 132 was ever carried out in the case of the assesse.
The AR pointed out that despite this, the AO proceeded to issued notice issued under section 148 on the erroneous premise that a search had been conducted against the assessee. The AR submitted that such a defective notice vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and renders them liable to be quashed.
In support of this submission, the AR placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Sheik [(2021) 125 taxmann.com
253].

The AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

23
reassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case.
33. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on his part, sought to defend the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) with considerable fervor. He submitted that the seized excel sheets and loose papers though not part of the statutory books of account, constituted contemporaneous records maintained by the person of the group, and therefore, merited serious evidentiary consideration. The DR argued that TNS was a key managerial person who , by virtue of his long standing involvement in the affairs of the group , had intimate knowledge of the case. The DR argued that very fact, that the excel sheet and loose paper were discovered from the office premises of the assessee gave rise to a presumption under section 132(4A) that the contents thereof belonged to the assessee. He further argued that the statement of TNS, recorded contemporaneously during the search, carried evidentiary weight. According to the DR, such testimonies could not be brushed aside as unreliable merely because of subsequent retractions.
34. The learned DR further contended that the retractions filed by TNS and NKS were afterthoughts, strategically made only after they had realized the adverse implications of their earlier admissions. Such belated retractions, he argued, should not dilute the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 132(4), which, by legislative design, enjoy a special evidentiary status. In this connection, he drew

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

24
reference to certain judicial pronouncements where Courts have held that retractions lacking immediate contemporaneity or supporting explanation cannot be accepted at face value.
The DR also maintained that while the excel sheets / loose paper may not have been formal books of account, they nevertheless reflected a coherent pattern of transactions covering multiple years, with cross-references to names, amounts, and land parcels, thereby lending internal consistency and credibility to the entries. He urged that the Assessing Officer had correctly distinguished between the entries relatable to payment by cheque and entries relatable to payment by cash.
35. On the question of corroboration, the learned DR contended that complete mathematical or documentary correlation is not always possible in cases of search, and that circumstantial inference drawn from the seized material can, in appropriate cases, suffice for sustaining an addition. He emphasized that the Assessing Officer, by collating the excel sheet and loose sheet with the statements of key managerial person had constructed a cogent evidentiary mosaic pointing to unaccounted transactions. The DR urged that the Tribunal should not substitute its own appreciation of evidence in place of the Assessing Officer‟s considered view, unless such view is perverse or devoid of rational basis. In his submission, the order of the CIT(A), which had already granted substantial relief, represented a fair equilibrium between departmental interest and taxpayer‟s grievance, and no further deletion was warranted.

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

25
DECISION
36. We have heard rival contentions, perused the voluminous records and relevant finding given in the impugned orders. In so far as the issue relating to taxability of unaccounted investment in Dhokawade land, it is seen that the entire premise of the ld. AO is based on the statements of TNS who has alleged to have explained entries in the excel sheet found during the search.
37.The facts of this case are ispo facto the same and identical with the facts in the case of Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria appeal no. 3216/Mum/2025 decided by the „E‟ Bench of the ITAT vide order relating to the land situated at Dhokawade
Land and respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench which is based on exact same facts and material, this appeal of the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs.
6,70,174 is deleted.
38. We now turn to the connected appeals for the subsequent assessment years, wherein the facts, issues, and the reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer are pari materia to those already adjudicated upon in the lead year. In each of these years, the additions have emanated from the same set of excel sheet and the same statements recorded during the search, with only the quantum of alleged unaccounted investment in Dhokawade land differing in arithmetical magnitude. The learned representatives on both sides fairly conceded that the evidentiary foundation, the nature of seized material, and the pattern of assessment are identical. Having

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

26
already held that the very basis of these additions is legally infirm and evidentially hollow, it necessarily follows that the same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to these years as well. We therefore adopt our findings and conclusions in the lead appeal as applicable in toto to the remaining years under consideration.
39. For the sake of ready reference the grounds raised by the assessee in other year and EI Beneficiary Trust are incorporated as under:-
(A)
ITA No.3231/Mum/2025) - AY 2021-22 (Assessee’s
Appeal)
Grounds raised by the Assessee:
Ground no.1
The CIT (A) erred in holding that AO was right in making an addition of Rs. 12,91,971 under section 69A/69B as being cash applied towards purchase of land at Dhokawade, Alibaug. The Appellant submits that the addition are made purely of 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. 2
Without prejudice to above, The CIT (A) erred in holding that AO was right in making an addition of Rs. 12,91,971 under section 69A/69B without appreciating the fact that the transaction in respect of which the addition has been made was never consumated.

Ground no. 3
The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A & 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A & 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduce.

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

27
The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.

(B)
EI Beneficiary Trust - ITA No.3234/Mum/2025) - AY
2016-17 (Assessee’s Appeal)
Grounds raised by the Assessees:
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 juri iction 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 AO was right in making adding Rs.1,67,544 under section 69A/69B as being cash applied towards purchase of land at Dhokawade, Alibaug. The Appellants submit that the additions are made purely of surmises and conjectures and in any event 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 Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.
The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.

(C)
EI Beneficiary Trust - ITA No.3235/Mum/2025) - AY
2017-18 (Assessee’s Appeal)

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

28
Grounds raised by the Assessees:
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 juri iction 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 AO was right in making adding Rs. 5,02,631 under section 69A/69B as being cash applied towards purchase of land at Dhokawade, Alibaug. The Appellants submit that the additions are made purely of surmises and conjectures and in any event 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 Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.

The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.

(D)
EI Beneficiary Trust - ITA No.3235/Mum/2025) - AY
2017-18 (Assessee’s Appeal)
Grounds raised by the Assessees:
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

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

29
submit that the conditions precedent to reopening of the assessment are not compiled with and the Order passed by the AO is without juri iction 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, Appellants submit that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3) /148
has been issued without DIN and therefore this Order passed by the AO is a nullity in law and the Appellants pray that the same be quashed

Ground No 3
Without prejudice to the above, the CIT (A) erred in holding that AO was right in making adding Rs. 3,90,935 under section 69A/69B as being cash applied towards purchase of land at Dhokawade, Alibaug. The Appellants submit that the additions are made purely of surmises and conjectures and in any event 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 4
The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.

The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.

30
defective notice under section 148 and the substantive additions made on account of alleged unaccounted investment in Dhokawade land, based on the same excel sheet and materials. The Assessee has also raised the issue of improper
DIN only in the case of EI
Beneficiary
Trust
(ITA
3236/Mum/2025) AY 2018-19, which is not there in other connected appeals;
41. On merits, the assessee has contested the additions made on account of alleged unaccounted investment in land is said to have arisen from the statements recoded under section 132[4]/131 which have been retracted , contending that the same are purely notional and unsupported by any cogent material. It has been argued that such additions rest entirely on excel sheets which were not prepared by the assessee and are purely for MIS purposes, which neither constitute books of account nor possess any evidentiary sanctity in the eyes of law. These contentions, as raised across the various assessment years, have already been examined in detail in the earlier part of this order, where we have found that the reassessment proceedings themselves suffer from fundamental juri ictional defects, and that the very foundation of the additions lacks probative value. The present grounds, therefore, stand on identical footing, both in law and in fact, and are to be adjudicated in consonance with the principles and findings already recorded hereinabove.
42. Since we have held that the seized excel sheet themselves lack probative value and the statements supporting them stand retracted, both the substantive and ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

31
protective additions crumble together. The concept of protective assessment, as judicially expounded, presupposes that there exists a sustainable substantive addition somewhere within the group. Where the substratum of that substantive addition is itself found non-existent, the protective one cannot survive in limbo. The deletion of the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee thus automatically extinguishes any protective addition made elsewhere.
43. We also note that in, the Assessing Officer has purported to reopen completed assessments merely on the basis of the seized excel sheet, even though such material pertained entirely to earlier or later years. This mechanical transposition of entries across assessment years, without verifying the temporal correlation of the alleged transactions, amounts to impermissible telescoping of facts. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [(1992) 198 ITR 297
(SC)] held that reopening under section 147 cannot be used as a ploy for roving verification or fishing enquiry into completed matters. The Assessing Officer‟s act of extrapolating entries found in one year to reopen other years is precisely the mischief, which the Court sought to prevent. On this count too, the reassessments lack legal sanctity.
44. Additionally, the assesse (E I Beneficiary Trust) AY 2018-
19 (ITA No.3236/Mum/2025) has also raised an unconnected legal ground concerning improper DIN on the impugned assessment order. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the assessment order was dated 24th March 2025, whereas the intimation letter bearing the DIN was generated and ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

32
communicated on 26th March 2025. Thus, on the date when the assessment order was passed, no DIN existed in the system. The purported handwritten DIN subsequently inserted in the body of the order is a post facto attempt at regularization. This practice, we regret to note, stands in direct contravention of the binding mandate of CBDT Circular
No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019, which prescribes that “no communication shall be issued by any income-tax authority without a computer-generated DIN, and any communication issued in contravention thereof shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.” The Circular, being issued in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act, has statutory force and is binding upon all officers of the Department.
45. The Circular admits of only limited exceptions in cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions were satisfied in the present case. On the contrary, the generation of DIN after the date of assessment belies any claim of technical exigency. The omission, therefore, is not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive breach that goes to the root of juri iction. The Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT [(2023)
154 Taxmann.com 144 (Bom)] has authoritatively held that ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

33
failure to issue an order through the designated ITBA portal, or issuance of an order without a valid pre-existing DIN, renders such order invalid and non est in the eyes of law. The Court rejected the argument that subsequent intimation of DIN could cure the defect, holding that such post-dated compliance defeats the purpose of the Circular, which is to ensure transparency, traceability, and audit trail of every communication issued by the Department.
46. The same principle was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble
Madras High Court in CIT v. Laserwords US Inc. [(2025)
175 Taxmann.com 920 (Mad)], where it was held that an assessment order and DRP proceedings issued without a valid
DIN were void ab initio. The Court observed that the procedural mandate under Circular No. 19 of 2019 is not directory but mandatory, and that even if a DIN was generated later and handwritten in the order, such post facto insertion could not cure the inherent defect of invalidity. The reasoning was reiterated in CIT (International Taxation) v. Sutherland
Global Services Inc. [(2025) 175 Taxmann.com 897 (Mad)], where the Hon‟ble Court observed that the absence of a pre- generated DIN, or the failure to record reasons and obtain prior approval for manual issuance, is fatal to the validity of the order. These rulings, when read conjointly, leave no room for doubt that compliance with the DIN protocol is a juri ictional prerequisite and not a curable irregularity.
47. The coordinate benches of this Tribunal have consistently followed this judicial position. In DCIT (Central
Circle–7(2)) v. Shubhkanchi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

34
1600/Mum/2022), the Tribunal, applying the ratio of Ashok
Commercial Enterprises (supra), quashed the assessment order for violation of the DIN requirement, observing that the issuance of a manual order without a computer-generated DIN was antithetical to the CBDT‟s stated policy of transparency and accountability. Likewise, in CIT v. Laserwords US Inc.
and Sutherland Global Services (supra), both the High
Courts categorically declared that communications issued without valid DINs are “invalid and deemed to have never been issued.” Following these precedents, we hold that the assessment orders impugned before us having been manually issued and followed by post-dated DIN intimations are void in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. The sanctity of the CBDT‟s procedural safeguards cannot be reduced to a mere formality; they are, in essence, the bedrock of institutional integrity in the era of faceless administration.
48. Having held so, it necessarily follows that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 by the juri ictional 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 dual breaches one juri ictional, 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 ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

35
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 juri iction and for breach of mandatory procedural require.57. Once the foundational assessment is quashed, all ancillary determinations such as depreciation recomputation, interest levies, or carry-forward adjustments lose their footing. In consequence, these incidental matters need no separate adjudication and are rendered infructuous.
49. For the sake of clarity and completeness, it is hereby recorded that: (i) additions were made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade, are deleted in full; (ii) assessments reopened under section 147 are quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking juri iction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment
Scheme under section 151A (ii) the assessment orders themselves are invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT
Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre- generated DIN and (iii) the assessment orders themselves are invalidated on account of defective notices issued under section 148; It is further clarified that all consequential adjustments such as disallowances, carry-forward of losses,

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

36
and levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C are rendered academic in view of the annulment of the primary assessment orders.
50. The cumulative outcome of these appeals is thus be summarised, for administrative convenience, as follows:-
ITA No.
Asseesee
A.Y
Result
3230/Mum/2025 Govind
Corporation
2015-16
Allowed
3031/Mum/2025 Govind
Corporation
2021-22
Allowed
3234/Mum/2025 EI Beneficary
Trust
2016-17
Allowed
3235/Mum/2025 EI Beneficary
Trust
2017-18
Allowed
3236/Mum/2025 EI Beneficary
Trust
2018-19
Allowed

Order pronounced on October, 2025. (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 28/10/2025
KARUNA, sr.ps

ITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others
Govind Corporation & Others

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.