BHARATKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI SOLANKI,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, IT DEARTMENT JURIS. AO - THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1390/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 August 2026AY 2016-1710 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of third-party information (an excel sheet and a general admission by a developer) without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property and the AO reopened the case based on information that the assessee paid on-money in cash. The AO made an addition of Rs. 54,76,000/- on this account, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether an addition can be made solely on the basis of third-party documents and statements without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination, and if the reopening under Section 147 was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI TAPAS RAM MISRA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, SR-DR
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 19.05.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “The Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,94,660/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received that the assessee had entered into significant

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 2

financial transaction with Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “NODPL”). A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in Navratna Group on 11.04.2017, wherein receipt of on- money by the Group was admitted and NODPL had filed a settlement application disclosing the on-money receipts. The assessee had purchased a unit/villa at “Kalhaar Blues and Greens” developed by NODPL and as per the information received by the AO, the assessee had paid on-money of Rs. 54,76,000/- in cash towards purchase of property. Though the assessee had denied having made any on-money payment, the AO had made addition of Rs. 54,76,000/- on account of on-money payment and the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 18.05.2023 at total income of Rs. 60,70,660/-.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

4.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.

The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B by the learned Assessing Officer. It is submitted that, the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(Appeals) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. It may please be so held now. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 147 and issuing notice u/s.148 without realizing that the same are time barred, and hence, void ab-initio. It submitted that it be so held now and the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer as confirmed by CIT(Appeals) be quashed

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 3

3.

The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.54,76,000/- as unexplained investment made by the learned Assessing Officer to the income of the Appellant u/s.69 of the Act. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, such addition is wrongly made by the learned Assessing Officer and wrongly confirmed by CIT(Appeals). 3.1. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.54,76,000/- u/s.69 of the Act without realizing that - (i) The entire addition has been made by the learned Assessing Officer only on some record or statement of third party, which is not binding on the Appellant. (ii) The entire addition has been made by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(Appeals) without having any evidence of any payment of on-money by the Appellant as well as without realizing that the third party on whose statement reliance placed was not having any connection either with the Appellant or with 9 entities referred by the learned Assessing Officer in Para 1.7 of his assessment order. (iii) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.54,76,000/-u/s.69 of the Act when there was no opportunity given of cross examination of third party on whose statement reliance was placed by the learned Assessing Officer to the Appellant. (iv) Without prejudice to any of the earlier grounds, the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition u/s.69 for Rs 54,76,000/- for the year under consideration, particularly when there was no evidence that on money was relatable to the year under consideration. 4. Without prejudice to any of the earlier grounds, if at all, it is held that there was payment of on-money by the Appellant, the same can only be of the order of Rs. 18,25,333/- being 1 / (3 ^ (rd)) of the amount of Rs.54,76,000/- since the Appellant was having only 1 / (3 ^ (rd)) share along with other two co-owners in the purchase of property at Kalhar Blue and Greens. It is submitted that it be so held now. 5. Without prejudice to the earlier grounds, the learned Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on the Appellant and the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the same. It is submitted that the provisions of section 115BBE are not at all applicable to the Appellant and he should not have been assessed u/s.115BBE 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s.234B and 234C for a sum of Rs.14,55,632/- and Rs.3,053/- respectively. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the same. It is submitted that the interest so charged may please be directed to be deleted. 7. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 4

5.

Shri Sanjay R Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee did not press Ground Nos. 1 and 2, which are legal grounds. Hence, both these grounds are dismissed.

6.

Ground Nos. 3 to 5 pertains to addition of Rs.54,76,000/- on account of on-money payment. Shri Sanjay R. Shah, the Ld. AR, submitted that in the course of search no evidence for any cash payment made by the assessee was found. He explained that the AO had made the addition only on the basis of general statement of one Shri Murlidhar Marutibhai Trivedi and the admission of NODPL before the settlement commission that it had received on-money in certain transactions. He submitted that even the extract of the excel-sheet, on the basis of which this addition was made, is neither reproduced in the assessment order nor it was ever provided to the assessee. There was no specific admission by NODPL that the assessee had made any on-money payment in this transaction. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was only 1/3rd co-owner of the property and the AO was not correct in making addition for entire on- money receipt in the hand of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal has considered the admission of NODPL and held that no addition was called for on that basis in the hand of the beneficiaries. Further, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court too has held that no addition could have been made only on the basis of excel-sheet found from the NODPL. In this regard reliance was placed on the following decisions:

(i) Ashokkumar Prahladbhai Patel in ITA No. 1300/Ahd/2025, ITAT Ahmedabad (ii) Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia ITSS#21/Ahd/2021 ITAT Ahd.

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 5 (iii) Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024, Gujarat HC

7.

Per contra, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, the Ld. SR-DR supported the order of the lower authorities.

8.

We have considered the rival submissions. From the materials brought on record by the assessee in the paper book, it is found that the case of the assessee was reopened only on the basis of list of purchasers submitted by NODPL before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, in support of its contention that it had received on-money from various customers. The AO has not referred to any entry in the excel-sheet wherein cash payment of Rs. 54,76,000/- was mentioned for acquisition of the property by the assessee along with the other co-owners. As rightly contended by the assessee, no evidence was found in the course of search regarding payment of any on-money by the assessee. Merely because NODPL had admitted in its settlement application that on-money was received by it, it does not establish that the assessee had paid on- money for acquisition of the property by him along with other co-owners. Neither the details of any cheque payment made by the assessee was referred in the excel-sheet nor the AO has been able to co-relate any of the payments made by the assessee to NODPL with any seized material. The AO was also not correct in making addition for the entire on-money payment in the hands of the assessee, when he was only 1/3rd co-owner.

9.

The evidences found from NODPL on the basis of which the addition has been made, was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna in ITA No.1793/Ahd/2024 dated 19.03.2025. The finding given in the said order is found to be as under:

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 6 “7. The most important facts observed by us pertains to para No.9.1 to 9.4 of the assessment order.

For the sake of ready reference and completeness, the said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: -

9.1 As per assessee, the decoded is done by the Department decoded is done by the Department decoded is done by the Department is its own decoded is done by the Department is its own is its own is its own and the search party has not given any authenticity for it. However the and the search party has not given any authenticity for it. and the search party has not given any authenticity for it. and the search party has not given any authenticity for it. amount stated in the above discussion is tallied with the un-coded figures, which are tallied each other.

And as per assessee it is as under: -

In the pink color, the figure of amount is quoted at 37500 on 20.04.2013, it has been seen from the submission of the assessee that the amount of Rs.37,50,000/- has been paid on 25.11.2011. Hence, the plea of the assessee is cleared herewith. The amount paid by the assessee 37,50,000/- is quoted in computer entry is 37500. Thus, it is clear that the decoding has been made perfectly. The date of payment

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 7 and related entries again and again are reproduced above with the payment of the assessee. 9.2 The statement asked by Shri The statement asked by Shri Murlidhar Marutbhai Trivedi, the The statement asked by Shri The statement asked by Shri Murlidhar Marutbhai Trivedi, the Murlidhar Marutbhai Trivedi, the Murlidhar Marutbhai Trivedi, the accountant of the said NODPL could not be provided as the statement is accountant of the said NODPL could not be provided as the statement is accountant of the said NODPL could not be provided as the statement is accountant of the said NODPL could not be provided as the statement is based on not only the information regarding the assessee only but based on not only the information regarding the assessee only but based on not only the information regarding the assessee only but based on not only the information regarding the assessee only but another person’s only and it is confidential lies with Investigation wing another person’s only and it is confidential lies with Investigation wing another person’s only and it is confidential lies with Investigation wing another person’s only and it is confidential lies with Investigation wing hence, it ha hence, it has not been provided to the assessee. hence, it ha hence, it ha s not been provided to the assessee. s not been provided to the assessee. However, the s not been provided to the assessee. information received and as available with the assessee is incorporated in the assessment order above. 9.3 NODPL before ITSC has confessed that they have taken on-money NODPL before ITSC has confessed that they have taken on NODPL before ITSC has confessed that they have taken on NODPL before ITSC has confessed that they have taken on money money money out of sale of land and building thereon out of sale of land and building ther eon. It is confessed relevant to all out of sale of land and building ther out of sale of land and building ther eon eon the purchasers of the scheme whatever developed by it. The name of the assessee also inclusive thereon. It is not proper query from the assessee, for his individual, he has confessed before ITSC. 9.4 As regard the payment made in various years hence, the amount involved for this year is only for under question. However, it is brought to kind notice of the assessee that the purchase deed is executed in the the purchase deed is executed in the the purchase deed is executed in the the purchase deed is executed in the year under consideration hence, the all transac year under consideration hence, the all transaction are covered under year under consideration hence, the all transac year under consideration hence, the all transac tion are covered under tion are covered under tion are covered under this year only.” this year only.” this year only.” this year only.”

7.1 A detailed analysis of the relevant paragraphs from the assessment order reveals multiple inconsistencies and procedural lapses that render the addition unjustified. 7.2 Firstly, the decoding of figures has been done solely by the department without any independent verification, and the search party has not provided any authenticity for the same. This statement recorded on decoding has not been part of the assessment proceedings. The Revenue has relied on unverified and coded figures, which have been tallied against the un-coded figures without proper corroboration. Any statement recorded of the Directors or the employees relating to the material found in codes has not been brought on record. This raises serious doubts about the reliability of the figures used to make the addition. Since the authenticity of the decoded amounts is questionable, any conclusions drawn from them cannot be sustained. 7.3 Secondly, the records indicate that the payment details align with the submissions made by the assessee. It has been established that the amount

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 8 of ₹37,50,000 was paid on 25.11.2011, as per the assessee's records, which match the decoded figures quoted in the assessment order. The repeated mention of these figures in the department's findings confirms that there is no discrepancy in the assessee's declaration of the payments. Hence, the plea of the assessee stands corroborated, and there is no ground for any addition on this account. 7.4 Thirdly, the statement made by Shri Murlidhar Maruthbhai Trivedi, the accountant of NODPL, has not been made available to the assessee. The assessment order itself acknowledges that this statement is based not only on information regarding the assessee but also on another person's details, which are confidential and lie within the Investigation Wing. Since this statement has not been shared with the assessee, reliance on it violates the principles of natural justice. Without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the statement or verify its contents, the department cannot use it as the basis for making an addition. 7.5 Furthermore, NODPL has confessed before ITSC that it collected on- money from the sale of land and buildings. However, the admission was made in a general context regarding all purchasers of the scheme developed by NODPL. There is no specific mention or direct evidence linking the assessee to this alleged on-money transaction. In the absence of any concrete evidence that the assessee was involved in undisclosed transactions, making an addition solely on presumptions is unsustainable. Any such addition must be backed by clear, conclusive proof rather than general confessions made by third parties.”

10.

On the basis of the above findings, the Co-ordinate Bench had held that no addition was called for on the basis of the evidences provided by NODPL. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (supra) had observed on the evidences found from NODPL as under: -

“3. We find inherent fallacy in this submission, inasmuch as, there is no basis for conducting proceedings against the assessee merely for the fact that the developer had paid tax on the amount shown in the excel-sheet. There is no adjudication with regard to the payment, which was shown in the excel-sheet to the effect that the same was actually paid by the assessee to the developer. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings returned by the CITA and ITAT are that

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 9 the document found from the premises of the third party namely excel-sheet, which is the basis of the proceedings was without any signature and there is no corroborative material to substantiate the said document. The nature of the document has not been explained by the Assessing Officer while proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated.” 11. As already mentioned earlier, though the AO has made the addition on the basis of excel-sheet, he has been unable to co-relate any of the entries of the excel-sheet with the assessee. The law on the issue is well settled that third party lose sheets/digital data or any corroborating documents cannot be used as evidence against an assessee unless supported by independent evidence or unless the assessee is offered cross examination of the person whose statements/documents are relied upon. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (Surpa), has held that excel-sheet found from the third party has no evidentiary value and cannot form the basis of addition unless it is shown to be corroborated or linked to the assessee. In view of the above facts and the judicial precedents, the addition of Rs. 54,76,000/- in the hand of the assessee on account of on-money payment is deleted. The grounds taken by the assessee is allowed.

12.

Ground No. 6, being consequential in nature, is dismissed.

13.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 06/08/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (TAPAS RAM MISRA) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 06th August, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy)

ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2025 Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki Vs. ITO, AY-2016-17 10

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →