DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAJKUMAR GULABCHAND LADNIYA, AURANGABAD

आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee challenging the order dt. 30.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai for the assessment years 2015-16.

ITA No. 2122/Mum/2025, AY 2015-16.

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A r.w.s 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of unaccounted cash investment in Veda Trade Infra LLP?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was failed to appreciate that that the addition was made on the basis of incriminating loose paper seized during search proceedings in the case of Seksaria Group, which clearly indicated cash investment and constituted valid evidence under the Act?"

3 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

4 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

capacity and, therefore, no addition can be made in computing the Appellant's income. 3. Without prejudice, the addition under section 69A of the Act if at all is to be sustained, then the same ought to be restricted to Rs 25,00,000 The Appellants crave leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal." 3. Grounds No. 1 to 7 All the Grounds No. 1 to 7 raised by the Revenue are inter related, inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by A.O. u/s 69A r.w.s. 69B of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue while relying upon the order of assessment submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act most conducted on 07.10.2021 in the case of DB Realty Group, Dynamix Group and Seksaria Group, pursuant to which and on the basis of information emanating from the search actions, the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and during the re- assessment proceedings the A.O. relied upon incriminating material found and seized during the seizure, including excel sheets, loose papers and diaries maintained by the key persons of the Seksaria Group, particularly, Tarun Nandkumar Seksariya and Pawan Sharma. The statements of SEVERAL persons were recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) and 131 of the Act which revealed unaccounted cash transactions and

5 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

investments relating to various group entities, including references to the assessee which establishes the assessee’s involvement in un-accounting dealings. It was further submitted that on the basis of seized documents relating to M/s Veda Trade Infra LLP, the A.O. held that the assessee had made unaccounted cash investment of Rs. 29,00,000/- during financial year 2015-16 towards the purchase of land at Dapoli, Alibaug, which was not recorded in the books of account and thus made additions u/s 69A r.w.s. 69B of the Act. It was also submitted that based on entries found in the diaries of Pawan Sharma an amount of Rs. 14,95,500 was paid by the assessee in cash to Seksaria Group which was also treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. Further, the additions u/s 69A aggregating to Rs. 1,16,33,500/- comprising unaccounted cash receipts and unaccounted cash investments reflected in seized loose papers and other materials. Thus, in this way total additions aggregating to Rs. 1,60,29,000/- was made. The said addition for ultimately deleted by Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while deleting the additions the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additions were made on the basis of incriminating loose papers seized during such proceedings which clearly indicated cash investment and thus constituted valid evidence under the Act. However, Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the statement of Tarun Seksaria which was also recorded during the course of such proceedings, wherein modus operandi of cash investment in Veda Trade Infra LLP was clearly explained and corroborated by the seized loose papers. It

6 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that statements which were recorded during the course on search u/s 132(4) of the Act have strong evidentiary value and can be relied upon for making additions, especially where supported by documentary evidences. Since according to Ld. D.R. all the statements which were recorded during the course of search were supported by the documentary evidences therefore there was no occasion before Ld. CIT(A) to delete the additions. It was also submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the seized loose papers clearly reflected total cash investment of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- out of which Rs. 1,11,00,000/- pertains to the year under consideration. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions made u/s 69A or u/s 69B of the Act. Thus, lastly, Ld. D.R. submitted the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the A.O. be restored. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the revenue authorities and it was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had passed a detailed order while considering the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT and had rightly deleted the additions and thus while relying upon a written submissions submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) qua deleting the additions on merit be sustained and in this regard relied upon his written submission which are reproduced hereinbelow: “Background of Appellants case

7 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

8 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Loose sheet is reproduced below for your ready reference:

6.8. The said Loose Paper contained various notings against the name of Tarun Sekeria and the Respondent Assessee. Based on these noting in the Loose Paper, additions were made in the hands of Tarun Sekserja in AY 16-17, 17-18 and 20-21 and additions were also made in the hands of Respondent in AY 15-16, 16-17 and 18-19 despite the fact that no statement was recorded in respect of the said sheet and on the presumption that the amount mentioned in column B represents unaccounted investment in Dapoli land. 6.9. The present appeal is concerning addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000 made in the hands of Respondent assesse in AY2015-2016. 6.10. TNS's statement was debunked by the statement of Nandkumar Sekeria and thereafter TNS has retracted his statements vide letters dated 22nd December, 2022. 3. The CIT(A) vide order dated 15/03/2024 deleted the above addition of Rs.1,11,00,000 on the following grounds: The addition of Rs.1,11,00,000 made on account of unaccounted investment in Dapoli land was deleted by relying on the order of the Hon' Tribunal in the case of Tarun Sekseria (TNS) (ITA NO.3215/Mum/2025) for AY 2016-2017 wherein an addition of Rs.35,00,000 was made in the hands of TNS on the basis of same Loose Sheet was deleted on the ground that the Loose sheet is an uncorroborated dumb document and has no

9 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

evidentiary value especially in view of the retraction of the statement by TNS. 4. In respect of Ground no.1 to 5 raised by the department regarding relief of Rs.1,11,00,000 allowed by CIT(A), the Respondent relies of the decision of Tribunal relied upon by the CIT(A) in granting the relief. The Respondent further relies on the other decision of co-ordinate benches passed in the case of group companies of Sekseria group wherein relief has been allowed on the similar ground. 5. Details of Tribunal orders on which the Respondent is relying are as under: ITA No. Before Ground covered Running Page no of paper book 3215/Mum/2025 Sh Amit Shukla Ground No. 1-5 Page No. 34 order dated & Arun Khodpia Addition of Rs. (Para 52 of the 28/10/25 1,11,00,000 Order) made on the 3221/Mum/2025 Sh Sandeep Page No. 169 order dated Gosain & Sh O P basis of Loose (Para 25 of the paper (Annex-1 28/11/2025 Kant Order) Page 71) in 3233/Mum/2025 Smt Beena Pillai Page No. 189 respect of order dated & Sh Girish (Para 8 of the unaccounted 09/03/2026 Agrawal Order) investment in Dapoli Land. Department Appeal Ground No.6 to 7 6. Addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 under section 69A of the Act based on Rough Diaries 6.1. During the course of search on Estate, certain 'Rough Diaries' were seized from the premises of Estate. These diaries were maintained by the cashier of the group, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma ("PKS"), for his personal use. 6.2. The AO alleged that certain notings appearing in the name of "Raju Ji" in the said diaries represented unexplained income of the Respondent assesse and accordingly made an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 under section 69A of the Act. 6.3. The AO relied on the statement of PKS in concluding that the entry in the name of diary represents unaccounted income of Respondent Assessee, despite the fact that PKS has not identified the nature of transaction in his statement and had left it to the NKS to explain. 6.4.PKS had also clarified that the entries contained in the diaries were rough entries, some transactions may not have taken place or may have been cancelled, and that NKS would be in a better position to explain the same. 6.5. Accordingly, the addition made merely on the basis of such rough diary and vague statement of PKS

10 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

a) The addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 made on the basis of entries in rough diaries were deleted by relying on the Hon' Tribunal order in the case of Estate (ITA no.3228/Mum/2025) for AY 2016-2017 wherein addition was made in the hands of Estate based on the same set of rough diaries maintained by PKS for his personal on the ground that said rough diaries were uncorroborated dumb document and has no evidentiary value especially in view of retraction of statement by PKS 7. The CIT(A) vide order dated 15/03/2024 deleted the above addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 on the following grounds: The addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 made on the basis of entries in rough diaries were delted by relying on the decision of Hon, Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Estate Investment Private Limited (ITA No.3228/Mum/2025) for AY 2016-2017 wherein the addition was made in the hands of Estate Investment based on same set of rough diaries maintinaed by PKS for his personal use on the grounds that the said rough diaries were uncorroborated dumb documents and has no evidentiary value especially in viw of retraction of statement by PKS. 8. In respect of Ground no.6 to 7 raised by the department regarding relief of Rs.1,00,00,000 allowed by CIT(A), the Respondent relies of the decision of Tribunal relied upon by the CIT(A) in granting the relief.:

ITA No. Before Ground covered Running Page no of paper book 3228/Mum/2025 Sh Amit Khukla Ground No. 6-7 Page No. 86 Order dated & Arun Khodpia Addition of Rs. (para 41 of 17/10/2025 1,00,00,000/- based the Order) on entries in rough diaries 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgment cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that as per the facts of the present case, a search, seizure and survey action u/s 132 / 133A of the Act was conducted on the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. (Estate) and during the course of search certain documents were seized and based on which additions of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- and Rs.

11 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

1,00,00,000/-were made in the hands of the assessee but were ultimately deleted by Ld. CIT(A). We noticed that the said search extended multiple days and encompassed into various group entities and individuals associated with the ‘Seksaria Group’ and their business concerns. Although during the course of search operation, certain excelsheet based management information were found and seized and these documents, according to the department contained notings suggestive of cash investment for acquisition of land at Dapoli. In this regard statements of Mr. Nand Kumar Seksaria and Tarun Seksaria were also recorded. Therefore, AO while primarily relying upon the excel and the statement of Nand Kumar Seksaria and Tarun Seksaria, made additions under Section 69A and 69B of the Act. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to evaluate the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein additions made by the AO were deleted. The operative para of order of Ld CIT(A) is contained in para 8 to 18, and the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. The circumstances leading to the addition of Rs.29,00,000/- under section 69A for Assessment Year 2016-17 are summarised as follows. During a search operation involving the Seksaria Group, various incriminating materials-including loose papers, diaries, and digital evidence-were seized from the office premises of its flagship entity, Estate Investment Co India Pvt. Ltd. The aforementioned evidence was presented to Mr. Tarun Kumar Seksaria (TNS), Mr. Harsh Nandkumar Seksaria (HNS), Mr. Nandkumar Seksaria (NKS), and Mr. Pawan Kumar Seksaria (PKS). TNS, HNS, and NKS are principal members of the Seksaria Group, while PKS serves as cashier across multiple group entities, overseeing banking transactions and maintaining records of unaccounted cash transactions. During the search, an Excel spreadsheet containing details of land acquisition at Dapoli in Alibaug, Raigad District was recovered from TNS's computer. Upon examination, TNS asserted that this document reflected the total investment, including cash payments for the land purchase. He admitted that, out of Rs.2,07,54,500/-, an amount of Rs.1,02,04,500/- was paid in cash through M/s Veda Trade Infra LLP. TNS's admissions were substantiated by a loose paper identified as Page No.71, Annexure A-1, featuring a record titled "Veda

12 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Trade Infra LLP" dated 16.12.2019, which detailed investments made by "TNS" and "Rajuji." The document recorded the investment in Dapoli land under two separate columns, "A" and "B," showing that Rajuji (the appellant) invested Rs.1,85,00,000/-, with Rs.1,45,00,000/- attributed to cash payments. TNS further confirmed that transactions listed in Column B constituted unaccounted cash, as corroborated by other documents seized during the search.In light of the comprehensive facts, evidences, and statements provided according to section 132(4), the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice, requiring the assessee to submit written explanations and justify why the unaccounted cash investment during Financial Year 2015-16 should not be regarded as unexplained money under section 69A. 8.1 In response, the appellant denied making any cash investment through Veda Trade Infra LLP during the financial year 2015-16, either directly or via any group entities. The appellant further asserted that he was never a partner in Veda Trade Infra LLP during F.Y.2015-16 and first introduced as partner only in F.Y.2020-21. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the appellant's submissions and relied upon the statement of TNS recorded under section 132(4), wherein TNS provided details of transactions documented in an Excel sheet, specifically regarding investments made in land acquired by M/s. Veda Trade Infra LLP at Dapoli. TNS explicitly admitted to being a partner in the firm, identifying other partners as well, including Shri Rajkumar Ladniya- referred to as "Rajuji," the appellant. TNS confirmed that the Dapoli land investment included unaccounted cash contributions, specifying that he personally paid Rs.1,02,04,500/- in cash toward the acquisition. After corroborating TNS's statements with the transactions noted on Page 71 of Annexure A-1, the AO concluded that the appellant ("Rajuji") had invested a total of Rs.1,85,00,000/- through Veda Trade Infra LLP, of which Rs. 1,45,00,000/- constituted unaccounted cash not reflected in the official books. The AO further substantiated this inference by referencing diary entries made by PKS, whose statements were recorded under sections 132(4)/131 during search and post-search inquiries, offering detailed page-wise comments. PKS clarified that his diary entries concerned unaccounted cash transactions, including two specific entries dated 03.02.2015 and 31.03.2015. An amount of Rs.31,00,000/- received from Rajuji on 31.03.2015 corresponded with the transactions listed on Page 71 of Annexure A-1. Furthermore, the AO correlated certain transactions in Column A with the appellant's bank statements for F.Y.2015-16, reflecting transfers of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.02.2016 and 22.08.2017, respectively. Based on the cumulative facts and circumstances, the AO determined that the appellant had indeed made a cash investment in the purchase of land through Veda Trade Infra LLP. Consequently, an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- was added to the returned income under section 69A. 8.2 During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that the addition was made solely on the basis of a loose paper document marked as Page 71, Annexure A-1, which was seized during the search and survey action conducted in the Seksaria Group. The appellant further contended that no statement had been recorded regarding the referenced document, and that the

13 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer (AO) were based on TNS's statements pertaining to other seized documents. The appellant emphasized that he was never a partner in Veda Trade Infra LLP during the financial year 2014-15. Additionally, the allegations concerning cash investment, inferred from transactions listed in Column B, were based on TNS's statements relating to unrelated documents. The appellant asserted that the AO failed to substantiate the transactions documented on Page 71 of Annexure A-1 with any independent evidence, relying exclusively on TNS's statement, which was subsequently retracted.Furthermore, the appellant clarified that the term "Rajuji" appearing on the loose sheet has not been linked to him by either TNS or PKS. The appellant pointed out that similar additions of Rs. 35,00,000/- during assessment year 2016-17 in the case of TNS were examined by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 3215/Mum/2025 dated October 28, 2025, where the addition was deleted on the grounds that the retracted statement of TNS, unsupported by independent evidence, was considered unreliable. The appellant also referred to the Supreme Court decision in CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, arguing that diary entries alone are insufficient for drawing inferences and must be supported by independent corroborative evidence, 8.3 I have reviewed the facts of the case, the assessment order, and the submissions presented by the appellant. It is acknowledged that the addition under section 69A pertaining to cash investment is based on a loose paper document identified as Page 71, Annexure-1, which was seized from premises associated with the Seksaria Group. This document served as the primary basis for the addition related to unaccounted investment in the hands of TNS for Assessment Year 2016-17. The matter was escalated to the Hon'ble Tribunal, where it was addressed in ITA No.3215/Mum/2025 (supra). For ease of reference, the relevant portion of the judgment is provided below. "48. 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 Dapoli land, it is seen that the entire premise of the Id. AO is based on the statements of TNS who has alleged to have explained entries in the excel sheet found during the search. From deep scrutiny of the statements it is discerned that the statement of TNS was contradicted by NKS who is the key person involved with land dealings. Further, NKS pointed out that the said sheet was prepared by PDG which is evident on a plain reading of this statement and the same were estimate of cost and profits and projections. NKS has further stated that TNS was not in good health and to keep him busy he was assigned with the task of land acquisition. No further statement of NKS was recorded on this issue. Further, in the statement of TNS was considered only in part. The AO ignored the statement where TNS has stated that the cash was derived from Estate. The AO has not recorded the statement of TNS in respect of various other entries found in the excel sheet. Thus, this statement per se cannot lead to conclusion that notings ITA No.3215/Mum/2025& Others Tarun Nandkumar Sekseria 29 in the excel sheet prepared by PDG in his individual capacity can lead to

14 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

adverse inference in so far as assessee company are concerned that they paid cash towards acquisition of land. 49. Another important fact is that both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements before the learned Assessing Officer. The reasons for such retraction were that they were not even aware that their statements would be used against the assessee, particularly when the seized excel sheet were not prepared by any the assesse. When statements have been retracted with cogent and plausible reasons, the law casts a corresponding duty on the Assessing Officer to summon those persons, confront them with their earlier statements, and subject them to cross-examination. Such procedural safeguard, as repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions cited before us by learned counsel, is not a matter of indulgence but a sine qua non of natural and fair adjudication. 50. As regards the addition of capital gains, the addition was based on a loose sheet which was uncorroborated Further, no statement in respect of the loose sheet which the AO has alleged mentioned year wise details was recorded. 50.1. The common thread in all these additions relating to lands at Dapoli, is that these have been made on the basis excel sheets or losse papers which are not self-explanatory purely based on the statements recorded under section 132[4] by TNS and contradicted by NKS 50.2. Even after the statements have been retracted no further action has been taken by the AO either on the retraction or any effort has been made to provide any other corroborative evidence by making third party verifications or by rerecording the statements of the concerned persons 50.3. Further in respect of the addition of capital gains, the AO relied merely on loose sheet titled Veda(B) without recording statements of any of the concerned parties i.e. the sellers and buyers of the shares of Veda despite there being contradictory facts evident in the noting in the said loose sheet and that too, despite being pointed out by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, which have been reiterated by the AR during the course of the hearing before us. The CIT[Appeals] has confirmed the addition of capital gains by merely relying on the order of the AO and without rebutting the submissions filed by the assesse. 50.4. The mere discovery of excel sheet and loose sheets which are not even prepared by the assessee and remain uncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the authorship and authenticity of such documents are in dispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search, may record statements or seized documents; however, the same are merely inputs for further enquiry. Once the material is transmitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, it becomes incumbent upon him to apply his own independent mind and conduct proper enquiry to

15 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

determine whether such statements or seized documents can lawfully lead to any addition. 50.5. The Assessing Officer cannot act as a mere forwarding agent of the report or view expressed by the Investigation Wing and mechanically incorporate the same in his assessment order without exercising his own judgment as to whether such information or view can legitimately form the foundation of an addition within the four corners of law. At best, the information and material emanating from the Investigation Wing may serve as a trigger or starting point to issue a showcause notice and seek an explanation from the assessee. But once the assessee has rebutted those materials including any recorded statement with cogent reasons, the Assessing Officer must judiciously evaluate such explanation and undertake at least a prima facie enquiry to test the correctness of the rebuttal and strengthen the evidentiary base of the material relied upon. 50.6. If he fails to do so, sustaining any addition solely on the basis of such material gathered from the search cannot be justified. In the present case, the statements and documents relied upon by the Department have been effectively rebutted and controverted with cogent reasoning, as elaborated in detail above. The Assessing Officer, functioning as a quasijudicial authority, is bound to apply his mind independently and adjudicate the issue in a fair and reasoned manner. 50.7. The presumption under section 132(4A) is, at best, a limited and rebuttable presumption applicable only in the context of seizure and custody, and cannot, by itself, elevate a private employee's scribblings into proof of income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer's reliance on extrapolation extending the inference drawn from a uncorroborated excel sheet and the loose sheet amounts more to conjecture than to judicial reasoning. 51. This concern is further magnified when the foundation on which the said addition was made i.e. Statement of TNS has been retracted and no further examination or crossverification has been undertaken. In light of these circumstances, the very evidentiary substratum of the additions evaporates, leaving behind nothing but suspicion. The Assessing Officer's approach of brushing aside the retractions as afterthoughts, without testing their veracity through examination or cross-questioning, constitutes a serious procedural infirmity. 51.1. This infirmity is all the more pronounced in the present case because the seized material is neither self-explanatory nor independently corroborated. The Assessing Officer's duty extends beyond mere reproduction of search findings; he must verify the surrounding facts and determine whether any such statements or diary notings are supported by independent evidence. Yet, in this case, he did not examine any of the persons purportedly involved in the statements, who were identified by TNS and were the supposed recipients of cash.

16 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

51.2. At the very least, there should have been some independent corroborative material such as bank statements, cash transaction or confirmation brought on record. The entire addition has been founded upon untested statements and cryptic notings. Such a method of assessment, built on conjecture and devoid of corroboration, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. An addition resting purely on suspicion and unsupported inference is antithetical to the settled principles of evidentiary assessment and the doctrine of fair adjudication. 52. We therefore hold that the Assessing Officer, in relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. The seized excel sheet and loose sheet, as earlier discussed, are incapable of interpretation without contextual evidence, and the statements upon which reliance was placed stand nullified by valid retraction. The confluence of these infirmities absence of corroboration, failure to summon and cross-examine, and the intrinsic vagueness of the documents compels us to conclude that the additions made towards alleged capital gains and unexplained money are devoid of factual and legal foundation. In the result, the additions sustained under the head "Unexplained Investment U/s 69A/69B" and capital gains addition of Rs.2, 14,50,000 cannot be upheld and are hereby deleted." 8.4 The Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal has rendered a decision regarding the seized documents, specifically "Page 71, Annxure-A1; Veda Trade Infra LLP" that served as the basis for assessments in the case of TNS. The Tribunal held that entries in an loose paper documents cannot be considered conclusive evidence of taxable receipts unless a clear nexus is established between the entries and actual transactions. The same document was also referred and used as the basis for the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the appellant's case for Assessment Year 2016-17. In accordance with the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal concerning the document, page 71 of Annexure A-1 in related group cases, it is hereby directed that the addition of Rs. 29,00,000/- under section 69A be deleted, as this document formed the sole basis for the disputed addition in the relevant assessment year. The grounds of appeal are allowed. Ground nos. 3(a) & (b): 9. The appellant raised ground nos. 3(a) & 3(b), which is reproduced as under: "Ground No.3(a) (Diaries) Without prejudice to ground No 1, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of section 69A in respect of an entry found in the diaries maintained by Mr. Pawan Sharma and seized from the premises of Sekseria Group and thereby making an addition of Rs. 14,95,500

17 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

The Appellant submits that the addition made by the AO is bad in law as they are based on unsubstantiated presumptions, conjectures and surmises. Ground No.3b Without prejudice to above, the AO erred in not granting the benefit of telescoping in respect of Rs. 14,95,500. The Appellant submits that the payment of Rs.14,95,500 should be subsumed / telescoped against the alleged cash investment of Rs. 29,00,000 as otherwise it will amount to taxing the said amount twice in the hands of Appellant." 9.1 The submission filed by the appellant is as under: "Ground NO.3(a) to 3(b) Addition of Rs.14,95,000 based on notings in diary and statement of Pawan Sharma Facts of the case 31) During the course of Search /survey action at office premises of The Estate India Investment Pvt Ltd at 402, 4th Floor, Seksaria Chambers, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai. 32) Diaries' were seized from the premises of Estate. These Diaries were maintained by the cashier of the group Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma (herein after referred to as 'PKS) for his personal use, wherein certain notings were found in the name of 'Raju ji'. The AO alleged that these entries represents income of the Appellants and made an addition of Rs. 14,95,500 under section 69A of the Act. 33) During the course of search statements of PKS was recorded on 08- 10-2021. In response to Q.No. 19, PKS clarified that these diaries were maintained only for his personal purpose and not at the instance of any Director or the management of Estate or its Group Companies. 34)Post search, another statement of Mr. Pawan Sharma (PKS) was recorded on 03-01-2022, under section 131 explaining the content of the Diaries. 35)PKS in his statement has identified certain receipt entries of Rs. 14,95,500 in the diaries as being pertaining to 'Rajuji'. 36) Relevant extract of diary noting and Pawan Sharma's statement is reproduced below: (Page No 166 to 167 of Paper Book) (i) Relevant extract of diary pertaining to receipt of 14,95,500 Page No. 24 of the written submission.

18 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

(ii) Relevant extract of statement of PKS in respect of above diary noting: Receip Amt (In Payment Amt (In Rs) t Rs) Aamby 1,80,000 Expenses (Avinash /Yatin & Ors) Chitre (office 20,10,000 exp) Mahabalesh 1,20,000 war Exp MBMC 1,00,000 Shivaji Office 75,000 exp KB 5,00,000 Milind 45,000 Sridhar Iyar 8,15,000 Khote 3,96,500 Total 50,55,000 Total 73,94,732 Total Cash/cheque receipt for the month of January 2016 is Rs. 50,55,000/-Further Shri Harsh and Kumar will explain about entries and expenses.

19 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

230 Receipt Amt (In Rs) Payment Amt (In Rs.) Assessee to Explanation KB 13,50,000 Personnel 20,75,300 Nand family Kumar withdrawal Seksaria (NKS) will explain the same 32) On perusal of the above diary extract and the statement of PKS it is evidently clear that neither PKS has identified ‘Raju Ji’ as ‘Rajkumar Ladniya’ i.e. Appellant nor he has explained the nature of transaction. PKS has merely stated that the transaction would be explained by Nandkumar Seksaria (herein after referred to as ‘NKS’). 33) The Statement of NKS was recorded under section 131 on 04/04/2022 (Page No. 168 to 176 of Paper Book). In Q.7 & 8, NKS's comment was sought on the statement of PKS wherein PKS has stated that the nature of transaction shall be explained by NKS. 34)In response to the said questions NKS stated that the entries are not self-explanatory as also there are many duplications in these entries and further since the diaries are very old and voluminous he will need time to verify the content with books of accounts to provide explanations of the same. No further statement of NKS has been recorded regarding diaries. 35) Despite the fact that PKS has nowhere identified 'Raju ji' as 'Rajkumar Ladniya', the AO has incorrectly mentioned in the assessment order that the PKS has identified 'Raju ji' as Rajkumar Ladniya (See page 19 of the assessment order), which is factually incorrect and based on surmises and conjectures. 36) The AO has also relied on excel sheet pertaining to Agarsure land wherein TNS has identified that Rajkumar Ladniyaas a shareholder in Veda Real Estate Corporation Pvt. However, it is interesting to note that TNS has no where admitted that 'Raju ji' mentioned in the diary is 'Rajkumar Ladniya'. The AO has incorrectly placed reliance on the said excel sheet to conclude that 'Raju ji' was 'Rajkumar Ladniya'. The said excel sheet and statement of TNS has been reproduced by the AO at page 38-39 of his assessment order. 37)PKS retracted his statement on 22-12-2022. 38) TNS retracted his statement on 22-12-2022 39)NKS retracted his statement on 07-02-2023

20 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

40) The AO has also not been able to corroborate the cash payment with any independent evidence of actual transaction and has made an addition of Rs. 14,95,500 solely on the basis of statement recorded of one vulnerable employee (PKS) who has neither identified that the word 'Raju ji' against which these amounts appear is the Appellant nor he was able to explain the nature of transaction. In any event this statement was subsequently retracted, and on the basis of when entries in the diaries which were maintained by that employee for rough working/notings. 41) The assessment proceedings were concluded on 15.03.2023 vide assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO made addition of Rs. 14,95,500 as alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Act was made purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and with no corroborative evidence. DEPAR 42) The Appellant submits that addition of Rs. 14,95,500 is invalid and bad in law, therefore, ought to be deleted. 43) This issue is now covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Estate for the AY 2015-16 (ΙΤΑ ΝΟ 3228/Mum/2025), wherein the Tribunal after considering all these facts and applicable High Court/Supreme Court decisions held that the 'diaries' are 'dumb documents' and since the statement of PKS and NKS has been retracted, no addition can be made by relying on the diaries in absence of any corroborative evidence 44) The summary of Appellant's submission is reproduced below for brevity: a) No incriminating material whatsoever has been recovered during the course of search as well as post search proceedings, which corroborates the receipt of cash except for the rough noting in the diaries maintained by the accountant of third party in their office premises. b) The AO relied on the statement of Pawan K Sharma (PKS) who has maintained the diaries for his personal use to make rough notings, without appreciating the fact that neither PKS has identified the Appellant nor has he been able to explain the nature of transaction. c) The AO has also not been able to corroborate the cash payment with any independent evidence of actual transaction and has made an addition solely on the basis of statement recorded of one vulnerable employee (PKS) who has also not identified that the word 'Rajuji' against which these amounts appear is the Appellant and in any event this statement was subsequently retracted. d) The diaries are nothing but a dumb document and are kept only for the purpose of making rough noting by PKS.

21 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

e) The notings in the diaries are riddled with instances which are not just susceptible to multiple interpretations and inferences but also there are numerous notings which are beyond understanding not just of the Appellant but also of PKS. Further, nowhere in his statement PKS has given any explanations regarding the nature of the transaction or identity of the person. f) In addition to the above, it is submitted that the notings are not maintained with any consistency. It has been assumed that certain notings are amounts in lakhs whereas majority of the other amounts are full figure amounts. In fact, PKS has written full figures for certain notings. Hence, it cannot be assumed that certain notings are amounts in lakhs while certain amounts are full figures merely because PKS has answered this question in the affirmative. Moreover, it cannot be ascertained as to which notings pertain to receipts and which notings pertain to expenses. Further, it also cannot be ascertained whether such alleged receipts and payments have actually occurred since the same are mere estimations and rough notings. The same notings could also be the time for conduct of meetings with the parties mentioned. G)On the specific issue of the word 'Rajuji' used in the diary, PKS has not even identified or mentioned that it relates to the Appellant. i.e. Mr. Rajkumar Ladniya. The Appellants statement has also not been recorded by the AO and no other corroborative evidence produced to substantiate this addition. h)Rough notings made in the diaries are not sufficient for making an addition without there being independent evidence with relation to actual transaction being undertaken I)n the very instance, the Appellant submits that since these diaries were maintained by PKS who is an employee of Estate the presumptions u/s 132(4A) is not applicable against him and accordingly the same cannot be treated as evidence unless corroborated with the evidence of actual transaction. j)Reply of PKS to question no.19 of the statement recorded on 08/10/2021, clearly demonstrates the fact that he has maintained the diaries for his personal notings / use.: "Q.19. Please tell, do you give the details of the cash entries maintained in the diary to the accountant of the company? Please state that is these cash receipts or expense recorded in the books of the account. Ans. Sir, No I do not share the entry in the diary with anyone because the details are maintained for my record keeping. This cash is not entered in the books of account." k) The Appellant, at the risk of repetition, submits that the noting in the diaries are nothing but rough notings. The Appellant further submits

22 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

that merely on the basis of rough noting in the diaries maintained by third party, no addition can be made unless any independent evidence to demonstrate that the notings in the diaries have actually culminated into a transaction undertaken by the Appellant is brought on record and most importantly, for the reason that even PKS has not identified that the word 'Rajuji' is in fact Mr. Rajkumar Ladniya, i.e. Appellant. In the absence of such independent evidence no addition can be made with relation to notings made in the diaries. l) The Appellant in support of the above proposition relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla ((1998) 3 SCC 410) (Page. No. 135 to 154 of Paper Book), where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the notings made in Jain Hawala Diaries held in that correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix liability upon a person. The entries in the diaries are not sufficient for there has to be an independent evidence in support of the same. The aforesaid decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause Society vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220) (Page No 155 to 163 of Paper Book) m) The Appellant further places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Umesh Ishrani (108 taxman.com 437) (Page No 164 to 165 of Paper Book), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal where in the Tribunal had deleted the addition made on the basis of loose papers by holding that nowhere the loose papers shows any payment made by the same person and no enquiry or verification was done by the income tax department with the other parties. n) The Appellant further places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Manoj MadanlalChhajed vs. ACIT (IT (SS)No. 91 to 96/ PUN/2022 dated June 28, 2023), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal while dealing with addition made of alleged unsecured loans on the basis of entries made in the diaries held that the notings made in the diaries were without recording the dates and full details and, therefore, it does not form part of books of accounts regularly maintained by the Appellant. It is not clearly decipherable from the said entries on standalone basis that the transactions had actually taken place which gives rise to any taxable event. Therefore, the notings are non-speaking and it cannot be concluded that it represents undisclosed income of the Assesse. The Hon'ble Tribunal further held in that since the entries do not contain any details to indicate the nature of the transaction, period of transaction and persons involved the inference drawn by the assessing officer that the entries represent accommodation entries received by the Assessee is merely based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the same cannot form the basis of addition. It is a settled position of law that onus lies upon the department to collect cogent

23 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

evidence to corroborate the notings made on the loose sheets/diaries reflect actual transactions. Additions cannot be made merely on the basis of notings on the loose sheet papers/diaries which are in the nature of dumb document having no evidentiary value. 45) In view of the above, the Appellant submits that the diaries are nothing but merely a dumb document, as the notings in the diaries are suffering from multiple interpretations and are not complete. Therefore, it is not a speaking document and therefore no addition can be made by merely relying on such dumb documents. 46) The Ld. AO has not been able to provide any corroborative evidence in support of the rough entries in the diaries, which further strengthen the Appellants argument that the entries in the diaries were rough and that the statement of PKS was recorded under duress. 47) The addition was also made in the hands of Estate in various assessment year relying on the same set of diaries and the statement of PKS / NKS. In the appeal filed by the Estate in the ITAT, the Hon' Tribunal vide its order dated 17-10-2025 for AY 2015-16 (ITA No.3228/Mum/2025) (Page No. 177 to 243 of Paper Book) has concluded that no addition can be made solely on the basis of the rough entries in these 'diaries' as they lack probative value and the statement supporting them stand retracted. 48) The Tribunal has therefore in fact endorsed the Appellant stand that these diaries are 'dumb document' based on which no addition can be made. 1) The Tribunal has also gone into the legality of these additions in view of the various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. 2) The Tribunal has also examined the statements made by PKS and NKS under section 132(4)/131 and the retractions made by PKS and NKS and the validity of the same and the effect thereof 3) The Tribunal has also examined whether additions in the circumstances can be sustained without the AO having produced any further corroborative evidence besides the entries in these diaries/Statements of PKS and NKS, which had been retracted 4)After a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances of the issue and the manner in which the additions were made in the case of the Estate the ITAT has held that: d)the 'diaries' which inter-alia contain entries pertaining to Estate and group entities and individuals cannot be considered as evidence based on which any additions can be made.

24 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

e) The retraction made by PKS/NKS nd since the notings in the diaries are not explained, the diaries then would be 'dumb documents'. f) that the AO not having produced any further corroborative evidence in these circumstances no addition can be sustained purely based on the diaries or statements of third party and consequently no additions can be made under section 69A/69B 5) The relevant extract of the Order of the ITAT which deals with this issue on the evidentiary value of the diaries/ retracted statements and the action of the AO in not providing any further corroborative evidence is reproduced below for ready reference (refer page no. 37 to 42 para 36-41 of the Tribunal order): 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 capital gains, it is seen that the entire premise of the Id. AO is based on the statements of PKS and NKS who have alleged to have explained entries in the diary found during the search. From deep scrutiny of the statements it is discerned that PKS in his statement has not identified the nature of entries noted in the diaries and left it for NKS to provide the clarification. NKS on the other hand in his statement has clearly stated that the diaries are not coherent, there are various duplications and most of them are rough notings etc., due to which he is not in the position to provide any clarification nor has offered any explanation or confirmed the statement of PKS. No further statement of NKS was recorded on this issue. Further, in the statement of KB which was recorded in respect of the noting in his name by showing him only one isolated single entry and then the said statement was extrapolated to all the diary entry in the name of KB, without recording his statement on to all the notings in his name in the diaries. Thus, this statement per se cannot lead to conclusion that notings in the diary maintained by PKS in his individual capacity can lead to adverse inference in so far as assessee company are concerned or the assessee company or related concerns that they have been taking cash on the deal of the land. 37. One very important fact to be noted here is that the seized diaries were maintained by the employee of P.K.S., who has himself categorically admitted that these notings were made for his personal purposes only and were not coherent, nor have they been fully explained or corroborated. This fact has been admitted by P.K.S. in his statement recorded in Question No. 19. We have also perused certain pages referred to at the time of hearing and found it difficult to believe that any normal person could decipher such entries after a lapse of six to seven years from the date of the statement. The Director N.K.S., in his own statement, has clearly stated that these diaries were maintained by P.K.S. purely for his personal use and reference. Now, when the diary itself has been found in the possession of the employee

25 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

who wrote and maintained it for his private reference, there can be no presumption under section 132(4A) operating against the assessee. Once the Assessing Officer himself has found that the entries in the diaries were merely personal notings of the employee, he ought to have verified and corroborated this statement by recording the evidence of any director or by summoning the parties from whom the alleged cash was purportedly received. No such effort was made, even though the entire details such as names, addresses, and the parties to whom NOCs were given were already available on record. The entries in the diaries are nothing but rough and unverified notings, incapable of explaining the underlying transactions without resort to the statements of P.K.S. 38. Another important fact is that both P.K.S. and N.K.S. have retracted their statements before the learned Assessing Officer. The reasons for such retraction were that they were not even aware that their statements would be used against the assessee company, particularly when the seized diaries were not found from the premises of any director or of the assessee company itself. When statements have been retracted with cogent and plausible reasons, the law casts a corresponding duty on the Assessing Officer to summon those persons, confront them with their earlier statements, and subject them to cross- examination. Such procedural safeguard, as repeatedly emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions cited before us by learned counsel, is not a matter of indulgence but a sine qua non of natural and fair adjudication. 39. The mere discovery of loose papers or personal diaries, which are not even maintained by the directors of the assessee company and remain uncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the authorship and authenticity of such documents are in dispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search, may record statements or seize documents; however, the same are merely inputs for further enquiry. Once the material is transmitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, it becomes incumbent upon him to apply his own independent mind and conduct proper enquiry to determine whether such statements or seized documents can lawfully lead to any addition. 39.1. The Assessing Officer cannot act as a mere forwarding agent of the report of view expressed by the Investigation Wing and mechanically incorporate the same in his assessment order without exercising his own judgment as to whether such information or view can legitimately form the foundation of an addition within the four corners of law. At best, the information and material emanating from the Investigation Wing may serve as a trigger or starting point to issue a show- cause notice and seek an explanation from the assessee. But once the assessee has rebutted those materials including any recorded statement with cogent reasons, the Assessing Officer must judiciously evaluate such explanation and undertake at least a prima facie enquiry

26 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

to test the correctness of the rebuttal and strengthen the evidentiary base of the material relied upon. 39.2. If he fails to do so, sustaining any addition solely on the basis of such material gathered from the search cannot be justified. In the present case, the statements and documents relied upon by the Department have been effectively rebutted and controverted with cogent reasoning, as elaborated in detail above. The Assessing Officer, functioning as a quasi- judicial authority, is bound to apply his mind independentlyand adjudicate the issue in a fair and reasoned manner.ITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others 39.3. The presumption under section 132(4A) is, at best, a limited and rebuttable presumption applicable only in the context of seizure and custody, and cannot, by itself, elevate a private employee's scribblings into proof of income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer's reliance on extrapolation- extending the inference drawn from a solitary entry or isolated explanation to hundreds of unverified notings amounts more to conjecture than to judicial reasoning. 40. This concern is further magnified when the authors of those diaries have retracted their statements and no further examination or cross- verification has been undertaken. In light of these circumstances, the very evidentiary substratum of the additions evaporates, leaving behind nothing but suspicion. The Assessing Officer's approach of brushing aside the retractions as afterthoughts, without testing their veracity through examination or cross-questioning, constitutes aserious procedural infirmity. 40.1. This infirmity is all the more pronounced in the present case because the seized material is neither self-explanatory nor independently corroborated. The Assessing Officer's duty extends beyond mere reproduction of search findings; he mustverify the surrounding facts and determine whether any such statements or diary notings are supported by independent evidence. Yet, in this case, he did not examine any of the persons purportedly involved in the alleged NOC transactions, nor did he summon the supposed payers of cash who whose names appeared in the diaries.ITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others 40.2. At the very least, there should have been some independent corroborative material such as bank statements, agreements, receipts, or documents evidencing any actual cash transaction or confirmation brought on record. The entire addition has been founded upon untested statements and cryptic notings. Such a method of assessment, built on conjecture and devoid of corroboration, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. An addition resting purely on suspicion and unsupported inference is antithetical to the settled principles of evidentiary assessment and the doctrine of fair adjudication.

27 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

28 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

from the directors of the Seksaria Group. He further informed the Investigation Team that the cash transactions detailed in the diaries were not recorded in the official books of accounts. A year-wise summary of these transactions was compiled from the diary entries maintained by PKS. PKS also provided explanations regarding loose paper diary-2 and diary-3 for transactions related to FY 2015-16. Specifically, transaction dated 11.02.2016, amounting to Rs. 14,95,500/-, were identified as cash receipts from "Rajuji." Further, PKS had also identified "Rajuji" as Rjkumar Ladniya (appellant). 10.2 Based on the prevailing facts, statements obtained during the search, and subsequent inquiries, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show-cause notice requiring the assessee to submit objections regarding the proposed classification of the said amount as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The AO took into consideration the assessee's responses and summarized the key arguments in paragraph 6.4.1 of the assessment order dated 15.03.2024. In summary, the AO recorded that the assessee had submitted that the seized diaries did not mention the name of the appellant. Furthermore, the statement by TNS referring to the appellant as "Rajuji" is not considered reliable, as it was not made in the context of the entries recorded in the diaries. The Assessing Officer observed that the appellant contended the case was primarily based on the statement of a third party, PKS, which should not be relied upon in the absence of supporting material evidence. Additionally, the appellant requested telescoping of the disputed amount against the investment of Rs. 29,00,000/-, which has already been treated as unexplained money concerning the investment in Dapoli land. 10.3 The AO rejected the contentions of the appellant regarding the appellant's name not being mentioned in the seized diaries. The AO discussed several other evidences recovered from the premises of Seksaria group relating to purchase of lands at Agarsure, Alibaug, Raigad District from the computer of TNS whose statement was recorded confronting these evidences u/s.132(4). The AO relied on the statement of TNS wherein the alphabet 'R' alluding the appellant as 'Rajuji in the context of explaining the contents of excel sheet providing the working of investment at Agarsure, Raigad District through M/s.Veda Real Estate Corporation Pvt Ltd. The AO also correlated the facts with page 71 of Annexure A-1 where the appellant had made investment for acquisition of land at Dapoli through Veda Trade Infra LLP. In the said document amounts mentioned in Col. A were through banking channels which correlated with bank statement of the appellant for F.Y.2015-16. The AO also rejected the assessee's contention that the entire case primarily stood on statement of third parties unsupported by any material evidence quoting the relevant documents from loose paper diary 3 impounded from the office premises of Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd. (Seksaria Group). The AO rejected the request of the appellant of telescoping the said cash paid to PKS on 11.02.2016 since the date did not match with the date of investment as recorded in the loose paper document Page 71, Annexure A-1. The AO proceeded to determine the assessed income adding Rs. 14,95,500/- u/s. 69A.

29 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

10.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that there is no corroborative document to support cash receipt in the context of noting made in the diary by PKS. The appellant states that the AO relied on the statement of PKS who had clarified that the diaries were maintained for his personal use and he has failed to confirm the identity of the appellant. The appellant also states that the diaries are nothing but a "dumb document" because there were numerous notings made by PKS not supported by independent evidences. The appellant has also submitted that the notings made constituted full figures as well as amounts in lakhs and no consistency was observed and hence the same are estimations and rough notings. The appellant has submitted that rough notings in the diaries are not sufficient to make an addition without there being an independent evidence corroborating the transaction for which he has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs V.C.Shukla 1998, 3SCC 410. The appellant has also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 3228/Mum/2025 wherein the validity of addition made on the basis of "diaries" has been dealt. The appellant submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal have observed that notings in the "diaries" cannot serve the sole basis for unaccounted transactions and hence they cannot be relied as conclusive evidence. 10.5 The addition of Rs.14,95,500/- is on the basis of notings made by PKS in the "diaries" maintained by him seized from the office premises of Seksaria Group. The relevance of these diaries in the context of determining unaccounted trasnactons in the case of Estate Investemnt Company Pvt Ltd. has been dealt by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No.3228/Mum/2025. For ease of reference, the relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced below: "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 capital gains, it is seen that the entire premise of the Id. AO is based on the statements of PKS and NKS who have alleged to have explained entries in the diary found during the search. From deep scrutiny of the statements it is discerned that PKS in his statement has not identified the nature of entries noted in the diaries and left it for NKS to provide the clarification, NKS on the other hand in his statement has clearly stated that the diaries are not coherent, there are various duplications and most of them are rough notings etc., due to which he is not in the position to provide any clarification nor has offered any explanation or confirmed the statement of PKS. No further statement of NKS was recorded on this issue. Further, in the statement of KB which was recorded in respect of the noting in his name by showing him only one isolated single entry and then the said statement was extrapolated to all the diary entry in the name of KB, without recording his statement on to all the notings in his name in the diaries. Thus, this statement per se cannot lead to conclusion that notings in the diary maintained by PKS in his individual capacity can lead to adverse inference in so far as assessee company

30 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

are concerned or the assessee company or related concerns that they have been taking cash on the deal of the land. 37. One very important fact to be noted here is that the seized diaries were maintained by the employee of P.K.S., who has himself categorically admitted that these notings were made for his personal purposes only and were not coherent, nor have they been fully explained or corroborated. This fact has been admitted by P.K.S. in his statement recorded in Question No. 19. We have also perused certain pages referred to at the time of hearing and found it difficult to believe that any normal person could decipher such entries after a lapse of six to seven years from the date of the statement. The Director N.K.S., in his own statement, has clearly stated that these diaries were maintained by P.K.S. purely for his personal use and reference. Now, when the diary itself has been found in the possession of the employee who wrote and maintained it for his private reference, there can be no presumption under section 132(4A) operating against the assessee. Once the Assessing Officer himself has found that the entries in the diaries were merely personal notings of the employee, he ought to have verified and corroborated this statement by recording the evidence of any director or by summoning the parties from whom the alleged cash was purportedly received. No such effort was made, even though the entire details such as names, addresses, and the parties to whom NOCs were given were already available on record. The entries in the diaries are nothing but rough and unverified notings, incapable of explaining the underlying transactions without resort to the statements of P.K.S. 38. Another important fact is that both P.K.S. and N.K.S. have retracted their statements before the learned Assessing Officer. The reasons for such retraction were that they were not even aware that their statements would be used against the assessee company, particularly when the seized diaries were not found from the premises of any director or of the assessee company itself. When statements have been retracted with cogent and plausible reasons, the law casts a corresponding duty on the Assessing Officer to summon those persons, confront them with their earlier statements, and subject them to cross- examination. Such procedural safeguard, as repeatedly emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions cited before us by learned counsel, is not a matter of indulgence but a sine qua non of natural and fair adjudication. 39. The mere discovery of loose papers or personal diaries, which are not even maintained by the directors of the assessee company and remain uncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the authorship and authenticity of such documents are in dispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search, may record statements or seize documents; however, the same are merely inputs for further enquiry. Once the material is transmitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,

31 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

it becomes incumbent upon him to apply his own independent mind and conduct proper enquiry to determine whether such statements or seized documents can lawfully lead to any addition. 39.1. The Assessing Officer cannot act as a mere forwarding agent of the report or view expressed by the Investigation Wing and mechanically incorporate the same in his assessment order without exercising his own judgment as to whether such information or view can legitimately form the foundation of an addition within the four corners of law. At best, the information and material emanating from the Investigation Wing may serve as a trigger or starting point to issue a showcause notice and seek an explanation from the assessee. But once the assessee has rebutted those materials including any recorded statement with cogent reasons, the Assessing Officer must judiciously evaluate such explanation and undertake at least a prima facie enquiry to test the correctness of the rebuttal and strengthen the evidentiary base of the material relied upon. 39.2. If he fails to do so, sustaining any addition solely on the basis of such material gathered from the search cannot be justified. In the present case, the statements and documents relied upon by the Department have been effectively rebutted and controverted with cogent reasoning, as elaborated in detail above. The Assessing Officer, functioning as a quasijudicial authority, is bound to apply his mind independently and adjudicate the issue in a fair and reasoned manner. 39.3. The presumption under section 132(4A) is, at best, a limited and rebuttable presumption applicable only in the context of seizure and custody, and cannot, by itself, elevate a private employee's scribblings into proof of income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer's reliance on extrapolation- extending the inference drawn from a solitary entry or isolated explanation to hundreds of unverified notings amounts more to conjecture than to judicial reasoning. 40. This concern is further magnified when the authors of those diaries have retracted their statements and no further examination or cross- verification has been undertaken. In light of these circumstances, the very evidentiary substratum of the additions evaporates, leaving behind nothing but suspicion. The Assessing Officer's approach of brushing aside the retractions as afterthoughts, without testing their veracity through examination or cross-questioning, constitutes a serious procedural infirmity. 40.1. This infirmity is all the more pronounced in the present case because the seized material is neither self-explanatory nor independently corroborated. The Assessing Officer's duty extends beyond mere reproduction of search findings; he must verify the surrounding facts and determine whether any such statements or diary notings are supported by independent evidence. Yet, in this case, he did not examine any of the persons purportedly involved in the alleged NOC

32 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

transactions, nor did he summon the supposed payers of cash whose names appeared in the diaries. 40.2. At the very least, there should have been some independent corroborative material such as bank statements, agreements, receipts, or documents evidencing any actual cash transaction or confirmation brought on record. The entire addition has been founded upon untested statements and cryptic notings. Such a method of assessment, built on conjecture and devoid of corroboration, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. An addition resting purely on suspicion and unsupported inference is antithetical to the settled principles of evidentiary assessment and the doctrine of fair adjudication. 41. We therefore hold that the Assessing Officer, in relying solely upon unverified diary entries and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. The seized diaries, as earlier discussed, are incapable of interpretation without contextual evidence, and the statements upon which reliance was placed stand nullified by valid retraction. The confluence of these infirmities absence of corroboration, failure to summon and cross examine, and the intrinsic vagueness of the documents compels us to conclude that the additions made towards alleged capital gains and unexplained money are devoid of factual and legal foundation. In the result, the additions sustained under the head-Capital Gains amounting to 4,96,95,000, and under section 69A amounting to 2,50,000, cannot be upheld and are hereby deleted.” 10.6 The Hon’ble jurisdictional Tribunal has rendered a decision regarding the seized documents, specifically the "diaries" that served as the basis for assessments in the case of EICPL. The Tribunal held that entries in an employee's diary cannot be considered conclusive evidence of taxable receipts unless a clear nexus is established between the entries and actual transactions. These same "diaries" were also used as the basis for the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the appellant's case for Assessment Year 2016-17. In accordance with the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal concerning the seized diaries in related group cases, it is hereby directed that the addition of Rs. 14,95,500/- under section 69A be deleted, as these diaries formed the basis for the disputed addition in the relevant assessment years. The grounds of appeal are allowed. Ground nos. 4(a) to (f): 11. The appellant raised ground nos.4(a) to (f), which is reproduced as under: "Ground No.4(a) (Loose Statements/Papers) Without prejudice to the ground No 1, the AO has erred in placing reliance on loose paper marked as A-1 Page 89 (herein after referred to as 'Loose Sheet') seized during the course of the action

33 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

on Estate Investment Company Private Limited and other entities (Seksaria Group) u/s 132 of the Act without corroborating the same with actual transaction. The AO made the following additions, aggregating to Rs.1,16,33,500 (Rs.46,33,500 + Rs. 70,00,000) on the basis of entries found in the Loose Sheet: Receipt Payment Name as per Amount Name as per Amount Loose Sheet Loose Sheet Rajuji 37,88,000 Rajuji 70,00,000 Rajuji (excess 8,45,500 balance) Total addition 46,33,500 Total addition 70,00,000 The Appellant respectfully submit that the AO has grossly erred in facts and law in making the above addition. Ground No 4(b) Without prejudice to above ground No 1, the AO's observation that the said Loose Sheet represents the settlement of transaction between the shareholders of Veda Real Estate Private Limited supports the contention of the Appellant that Raju ji mentioned in the said Loose Sheet is not the Appellant as he has no relationship with Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited. Ground No 4(c) Without prejudice to the above, even assuming but not admitting that the entries made in the Loose Sheet are relevant in the Appellant case, no adverse inference can be drawn merely based on rough entries made therein which are uncorroborated by with other external evidence Ground No 4(d) Without prejudice to above, in any case the receipt of Rs.37,88,000 shown in the Loose Sheet should be telescoped against the excess amount of Rs.37,87,500 received as per Loose Paper marked as Page 71 Annexure A-1 if the said excess amount of Rs.37,87,500 is taxed in the respective assessment years. Ground No 4(e) Without prejudice to above, in any case the addition cannot be made for both receipts (Rs.46,33,500) and payments

34 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

(Rs.70,00,000) in the same period. The Appellant submits that the addition should only be in respect of net amount. Ground No 4(f) Without prejudice to above, in any case the addition cannot be made for both receipts (Rs.46,33,500) and payments (Rs.70,00,000) in the same period. The Appellant submits if at all an addition has to be sustained it should only be in respect of peak credit." 11.1 The submission filed by the appellant is as under: "Ground NO.4(a) to 4(f) Addition of Rs. 1,16,33,500 based on Annexure 1 Page 89 - Loose Sheet Facts of the case 1.A search & Seizure/Survey action u/s 132/133A of the Act was conducted on the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd (Estate) at 4th floor, Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai and other related entities on 07.10.2021, wherein a loose sheet titled Anenx-1 Page 89 (herein after referred to as 'Loose sheet-2/'Loose paper-2') was seized (Page No 244 of Paper Book). The said loose sheet-2 is reproduced below: Date: 18/05/2016 VEDA(B) B 8,25,00,000 (Ajit Patil) 85,00,000 R.M.(chq)(GC) 50,00,000 (PG) 35,00,000 (Self) 4,29,05,000 (SID) 3,30,00,0000 (Rajuji) 70,00,000 GC(chq) 50,00,000 8,65,00,000 9,99,05,000 Shahjad 25,00,000 Rajuji(Excess 8,45,500 Balance) P.G. 18.02.2016 10,00,000 P.G. 25.04.2016 10,00,000 P.G. 23,17,000 Rajuji 37,88,000 Seksaria 20,00,000 Cash in Hand 45,500 9,99,50,500 9,99,50,500

35 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

36 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Veda Shareholding Pattern as on 31 Veda Shareholding Pattern as on 31-05-2015 Name No. of Amount Amount % of Shares shareho lding Tarun Seksaria Tarun Seksaria 2,500 25,000 0.08 Tarun Seksaria & Bahar Tarun Seksaria & Bahar 4,47,500 44,75,000 44,75,000 14.92 Seksaria Harsh Kumar Seksaria Harsh Kumar Seksaria 2,500 25,000 0.08 Harsh Kumar Seksaria Harsh Kumar Seksaria 4,47,500 44,75,000 44,75,000 14.92 and Nalini Seksaria and Nalini Seksaria Nand Kumar Seksaria Nand Kumar Seksaria 2,500 25,000 0.08 Nand Nand Kumar Kumar Seksaria Seksaria 4,47,500 44,75,000 44,75,000 14.92 and Reeta Seksaria and Reeta Seksaria Nand Nand Kumar Kumar Se Seksaria 4,50,000 45,00,000 45,00,000 15 Family Family Trust Trust (Trustee (Trustee Tarun Tarun Seksaria Seksaria and and Harsh Seksaria) Harsh Seksaria) Total of Seksaria Group Total of Seksaria Group 18,00,000 1,80,00,000 1,80,00,000 60

37 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

38 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

8.It is pertinent to note that based on the same Loose sheet-2- AnnexA1 Pg 89, the AO made an addition of Rs.2,14,50,000 in the hands of Tarun Seksaria in AY 2016-2017, which has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated28.10.2025 (ITA No. 3215/Mum/2025) on the ground that the Loose sheet-2 has no evidentiary value. 9. The assessment proceedings were concluded on 08.03.2024 vide assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO made addition of Rs. 1,16,33,500 (Rs.70,00,000 + Rs.8,45,000 + Rs.37,88,000) under section 69A of the Act. 10. The Appellant respectfully submit that the AO has made the addition on the following assumption: a.the said Loose sheet-2 denotes the transaction between the shareholders of Veda for sale and purchase of stake in Veda; b.the Appellant is a shareholder in Veda; and c.the Appellant has received the unaccounted consideration of Rs.70,00,000 for stake sale in Veda d. The Appellant has made unaccounted investment of Rs. 46.33.50,000 in Veda 11. The Appellants respectfully submits that the above assumptions are factually incorrect as the Appellant has never been a shareholder in Veda and therefore the question of stake sale is Veda does not arise. Accordingly, the addition made in the hands of Appellants on the basis of above assumptions derived from rough entry on a loose sheet of paper and without recording any statement on such loose sheet and without providing any corroborative evidence is bad in law and not maintainable. 12.In any case the Hon' Tribunal in the case of Tarun Sekseria vide order dated 28.10.2025 (ΙΤΑ No. 3215/Mum/2025)has held that the said Loose sheet-2 i.e.Annex1-Page 89-Veda(B) has no evidentiary value and therefore cannot be relied upon without any corroborative evidence. 13.As discussed above, an addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000 was made in the hands of Tarun Seksaria on the basis of the noting in Loose sheet- 2 i.e.AnnexA1-Page 89-Veda(B). The said addition of Rs.2,14,50,000 has been deleted by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2025 (ITA No. 3215/Mum/2025)on the ground that the said Loose sheet-2 has no evidentiary value and therefore cannot be relied upon without any corroborative evidence.

39 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

40 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

50.6. If he fails to do so, sustaining any addition solely on the basis of such material gathered from the search cannot be justified. In the present case, the statements and documents relied upon by the Department have been effectively rebutted and controverted with cogent reasoning, as elaborated in detail above. The Assessing Officer, functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, is bound to apply his mind independently and adjudicate the issue in a fair and reasoned manner. 50.7. The presumption under section 132(4A) is, at best, a limited and rebuttable presumption applicable only in the context of seizure and custody, and cannot, by itself, elevate a private employee's scribblings into proof of income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer's reliance on extrapolation- extending the inference drawn from a a uncorroborated excel sheet and the loose sheet amounts more to coniecture than to judicial reasoning COME TAX DEPARTMEto conjecture 51. This concern is further magnified when the foundation on which the said addition was made i.e. Statement of TNS has been retracted and no further examination or cross verification has been undertaken. In light of these circumstances, the very evidentiary substratum of the additions evaporates, leaving behind nothing but suspicion. The Assessing Officer's approach of brushing aside the retractions as afterthoughts, without testing their veracity through examination or cross-questioning, constitutes a serious procedural infirmity. 51.1. This infirmity is all the more pronounced in the present case because the seized material is neither self-explanatory nor independently corroborated. The Assessing Officer's duty extends beyond mere reproduction of search findings; he must verify the surrounding facts and determine whether any such statements or diary notings are supported by independent evidence. Yet, in this case, he did not examine any of the persons purportedly involved in the statements, who were identified by TNS and were the supposed recipients of cash. 51.2. At the very least, there should have been some independent corroborative material such as bank statements, agreements, receipts, or documents evidencing any actual cash transaction or confirmation brought on record. The entire addition has been founded upon untested statements and cryptic notings. Such a method of assessment, built on conjecture and devoid of corroboration, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. An addition resting purely on suspicion and unsupported inference is antithetical to the settled principles of evidentiary assessment and the doctrine of fair adjudication. 52. We therefore hold that the Assessing Officer, in relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. The seized excel sheet and loose sheet, as earlier discussed, are incapable of

41 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

interpretation without contextual evidence, and the statements upon which reliance was placed stand nullified by valid retraction. The confluence of these infirmities absence of corroboration, failure to summon and cross-examine, and the intrinsic vagueness of the documents compels us to conclude that the additions made towards alleged capital gains and unexplained money are devoid of factual and legal foundation. In the result, the additions sustained under the head- Unexplained Investment U/s 69A/69B II and capital gains addition of Rs.2,14,50,000 cannot be upheld and are hereby deleted. (emphasis supplied) The Appellant respectfully submits that the addition made in his case arises from the very same Loose Sheet-2 i.e.Annex1-Page 89-Veda(B), which has been examined and adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Tarun Seksaria (as discussed above). The issue involved in the present appeal is, therefore, squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble ITAT. In accordance with the well-settled principles of judicial discipline and judicial consistency, the said decision deserves to be followed, particularly when the same has neither been stayed, modified, nor reversed by the Hon'ble High Court. IN view of the above factual and legal matrix the Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,16,33,500." Decision on Ground nos. 4(a) to (f): 12. I have carefully considered the assessment order, the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and the written submission filed by the appellant along with the paper book. These grounds pertain to the addition of Rs. 1,16,33,500 made u/s 69A of the Act on the basis of a loose paper impounded as Annexure A1 Page 89 (titled "Veda (B)", dated 18.05.2016), wherein the AO has treated certain entries as unaccounted cash receipts/payments of "Rajuji", aggregated at receipts of Rs. 46,33,500 (Rs. 37,88,000 + Rs. 8,45,500) and payment of Rs. 70,00,000. 12.1 The assessment order mentioned that on "correlating" the said Annexure A1 Page 89 with statements recorded during search/survey and other impounded material, it can be inferred that the sheet contains details of unaccounted cash transactions by/of shareholders of Veda Real Estate Corporation Pvt. Ltd., and that the figures represent settlement of shareholders' accounts involving unaccounted cash (including the figures attributed to "Rajuji"). 12.2 The appellant, on the other hand, disputes (i) the identity linkage of "Rajuji" to the appellant for this sheet, and (ii) the foundational

42 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

assumption that the appellant was ever a shareholder in Veda Real Estate Corporation Pvt. Ltd., contending that therefore the very premise of "stake sale / settlement" does not arise. The appellant has also pleaded that the impounded paper is a dumb document, not self- explanatory, and that no statement of any concerned person was recorded specifically in respect of the said Annexure A1 Page 89 to explain its contents. 12.3 It is material to note that even in the connected group matters, the ITAT in ITA No.3215/Mum/2025 has recorded a specific factual finding that the loose sheet titled "Veda (B)" dated 18/05/2016 was impounded and that the AO had not recorded the statement of any director/concerned person in respect of the said sheet. This aspect goes to the root of evidentiary value of the impounded loose sheet. Further, in the case of Shri Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, the Hon'ble ITAT has dealt with the very same loose sheet titled "Veda (B)" and the additions drawn therefrom. The Tribunal has specifically observed that, for the capital gains/addition based on the loose sheet, no statement in respect of the loose sheet was recorded, and the loose sheet remained uncorroborated. 12.4 The Tribunal has further held that, in respect of the addition based on loose sheet titled "Veda (B)", the AO relied merely on the loose sheet without recording statements of any concerned parties (sellers and buyers), despite contradictory facts being evident in the notings and despite these being pointed out during assessment proceedings. This finding is directly relevant because, in the present case also, the addition is founded on the same loose sheet notings. The relevant part of the judgement is quoted below for immediate reference. "48. 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 Dapoli land, it is seen that the entire premise of the Id. AO is based on the statements of TNS who has alleged to have explained entries in the excel sheet found during the search. From deep scrutiny of the statements it is discerned that the statement of TNS was contradicted by NKS who is the key person involved with land dealings. Further, NKS pointed out that the said sheet was prepared by PDG which is evident on a plain reading of this statement and the same were estimate of cost and profits and projections. NKS has further stated that TNS was not in good health and to keep him busy he was assigned with the task of land acquisition. No further statement of NKS was recorded on this issue. Further, in the statement of TNS was considered only in part. The AO ignored the statement where TNS has stated that the cash was derived from Estate. The AO has not recorded the statement of TNS in respect of various other entries found in the excel sheet. Thus, this statement per se cannot lead to conclusion that notings in the excel sheet prepared

43 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

by PDG in his individual capacity can lead to adverse inference in so far as assessee company are concerned that they paid cash towards acquisition of land. 49. Another important fact is that both TNS and NKS have retracted their statements before the learned Assessing Officer. The reasons for such retraction were that they were not even aware that their statements would be used against the assessee, particularly when the seized excel sheet were not prepared by any the assesse. When statements have been retracted with cogent and plausible reasons, the law casts a corresponding duty on the Assessing Officer to summon those persons, confront them with their earlier statements, and subject them to cross-examination. Such procedural safeguard, as repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions cited before us by learned counsel, is not a matter of indulgence but a sine qua non of natural and fair adjudication. 50. As regards the addition of capital gains, which was uncorroborated Further, no statement in respect of the loose sheet which was based on a loose sheet the AO has alleged mentioned year wise details was recorded. 50.1. The common thread in all these additions relating to lands at Dapoli, is that these have been made on the basis excel sheets or losse papers which are not self-explanatory purely based on the statements recorded under section 132[4] by TNS and contradicted by NKS 50.2. Even after the statements have been retracted no further action has been taken by the AO either on the retraction or any effort has been made to provide any other corroborative evidence by making third party verifications or by rerecording the statements of the concerned persons. 50.3. Further in respect of the addition of capital gains, the AO relied merely on loose sheet titled Veda(B) without recording statements of any of the concerned parties i.e. the sellers and buyers of the shares of Veda despite there being contradictory facts evident in the noting in the said loose sheet and that too, despite being pointed out by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, which have been reiterated by the AR during the course of the hearing before us. The CIT[Appeals] has confirmed the addition of capital gains by merely relying on the order of the AO and without rebutting the submissions filed by the assesse. 50.4. The mere discovery of excel sheet and loose sheets which are not even prepared by the assessee and remain uncorroborated by any external evidence, cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for an addition. Particularly so when the

44 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

authorship and authenticity of such documents are in dispute. The Investigation Wing, which carries out the search, may record statements or seized documents; however, the same are merely inputs for further enquiry. Once the material is transmitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, it becomes incumbent upon him to apply his own independent mind and conduct proper enquiry to determine whether such tatements or seized documents can lawfully lead to any addition. 50.5. The Assessing Officer cannot act as a mere forwarding agent of the report or view expressed by the Investigation Wing and mechanically incorporate the same in his assessment order without exercising his own judgment as to whether such information or view can legitimately form the foundation of an addition within the four corners of law. At best, the information and material emanating from the Investigation Wing may serve as a trigger or starting point to issue a showcause notice and seek an explanation from the assessee. But once the assessee has rebutted those materials including any recorded statement with cogent reasons, the Assessing Officer must judiciously evaluate such explanation and undertake at least a prima facie enquiry to test the correctness of the rebuttal and strengthen the evidentiary base of the material relied upon. 50.6. If he fails to do so, sustaining any addition solely on the basis of such material gathered from the search cannot be justified. In the present case, the statements and documents relied upon by the Department have been effectively rebutted and controverted with cogent reasoning, as elaborated in detail above. The Assessing Officer, functioning as a quasijudicial authority, is bound to apply his mind independently and adjudicate the issue in a fair and reasoned manner. 50.7. The presumption under section 132(4A) is, at best, a limited and rebuttable presumption applicable only in the context of seizure and custody, and cannot, by itself, elevate a private employee's scribblings into proof of income chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer's reliance on extrapolation- extending the inference drawn from a uncorroborated excel sheet and the loose sheet amounts more to conjecture than to judicial reasoning. 51. This concern is further magnified when the foundation on which the said addition was made i.e. Statement of TNS has been retracted and no further examination or cross verification has been undertaken. In light of these circumstances, the very evidentiary substratum of the additions evaporates, leaving behind nothing but suspicion. The Assessing Officer's approach of brushing aside the retractions as afterthoughts, without testing their veracity through examination or cross-questioning, constitutes a serious procedural infirmity.

45 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

51.1. This infirmity is all the more pronounced in the present case because the seized material is neither self-explanatory nor independently corroborated. The Assessing Officer's duty extends beyond mere reproduction of search findings; he must verify the surrounding facts and determine whether any such statements or diary notings are supported by independent evidence. Yet, in this case, he did not examine any of the persons purportedly involved in the statements, who were identified by TNS and were the supposed recipients of cash, 51.2. At the very least, there should have been some independent corroborative material such as bank statements, agreements, receipts, or documents evidencing any actual cash transaction or confirmation brought on record. The entire addition has been founded upon untested statements and cryptic notings. Such a method of assessment, built on conjecture and devoid of corroboration, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. An addition resting purely on suspicion and unsupported inference is antithetical to the settled principles of evidentiary assessment and the doctrine of fair adjudication. 52. We therefore hold that the Assessing Officer, in relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. The seized excel sheet and loose sheet, as earlier discussed, are incapable of interpretation without contextual evidence, and the statements upon which reliance was placed stand nullified by valid retraction. The confluence of these infirmities absence of corroboration, failure to summon and cross-examine, and the intrinsic vagueness of the documents compels us to conclude that the additions made towards alleged capital gains and unexplained money are devoid of factual and legal foundation. In the result, the additions sustained under the head -Unexplained Investment U/s 69A/69B and capital gains addition of Rs.2,14,50,000 cannot be upheld and are hereby deleted." 12.5 The Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal has issued a decision regarding the impounded document, concluding that the Assessing Officer exceeded the permissible scope of evidentiary inference by relying exclusively on unverified excel sheets and unsupported statements. The Tribunal unequivocally determined that the seized excel sheets cannot be interpreted without appropriate contextual evidence; as such, any addition based solely on these documents is not maintainable. In line with the Tribunal's decision in respect of the impugned document designated as "Veda (B)"-impounded during survey proceedings in the case of the Seksaria group-it is hereby directed that the addition of Rs. 1,16,33,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A, since this document constituted the basis for the disputed addition in the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, Ground No. 4(a) is allowed, and the addition of

46 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Rs. 1,16,33,500 is directed to be deleted. In consequence, ground nos. 4(b) to 4(f) (which are alternative/subsidiary contentions regarding identity linkage, telescoping, netting, and peak credit) become infructuous/academic and do not require separate adjudication in view of deletion of the addition on the main ground itself. Ground no. 1: 13. The appellant raised ground no. 1 as under: "Ground No 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 8[1] (hereinafter referred to as the AO erred in re-opening the Appellants case under section 148 of the Act. The Appellants submits that the conditions required under section 148/section 149[1][b] for reopening the assessment and in particular, Explanation no 2 are not satisfied and therefore the reopening under section 148 is bad in law and void ab initio. The Appellants therefore pray that the Order passed by the AO under section 147/143(3) be quashed." 13.1 The appellant filed the submission on ground no. 1, which is as under: "GROUND NO 1 REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO Proposition 1 Notice issued/order passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer The Appellant submits that a notice under section 148 was issued without complying with the conditions of section 148. The Appellants submits that the AO could not have issued the impugned notice under section 148. As per scheme formulated vide Notification S.01466 (E)(18/2022) dated March 29, 2022 ("the Scheme") issued under section 151A of the Act, the notice could only have been issued in a faceless manner in accordance with section 144B of the Act. The Appellant submits 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. Further, the Appellant submits that the case of the Appellant is not covered under the exceptions provided under section 144B(8) of the Act, as the same covers Assessment

47 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Orders and not issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, which is specifically covered under the scheme formulated under section 151A of the Act. The Appellant relies on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court /Tribunal decisions:

1 Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) 2 Capital G LP V. ACIT (writ Petition (L) No. 15289 of 2024) (Bombay HC) 3 Abhin Anil kumar Shah v ITO reported in [2024] 468 ITR 350 (Bombay HC) 4 Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT (Writ Petition No. 23573 of 2024) (Telangana HC) 5 ADIT V. Deepanjan Roy [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] (SC) 6 Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap vs ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 168 (Bombay) The Appellant submit that none of the above decisions have been stayed by Hon' Supreme Court and therefore the same has the binding force on lower appellate authorities. In this connection the Appellant relies on the decision of Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of India vs ACIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay). This issue is also covered by the Tribunal order in the case of Estate Investment Private Limited for AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 3228/Mum/2025) wherein the Hon' Tribunal has quashed the assessment order for want of jurisdiction. It may be kindly noted that the diaries and loose sheet based on which addition has been made in the hands of Appellants were seized from the premises of Estate Investment Private Limited Relevant observation from the ITAT order is reproduced below for your ready reference: "Having disposed of the additions of merits, we now turn to legal ground concerning the validity of the assessment 43 ITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others itself. Upon the submissions and the judicial precedents, especially of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is a binding precedent on us, we are persuaded that the reassessment edifice is untenable on two independent yet converging grounds. The assessee has assailed the reassessment orders on two principal planks first, that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing

48 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, in contravention of the scheme notified under section 151A vide Notification S.O. 1466(E) dated 29th March 2022; and second, that the assessment order bears a manually inscribed Document Identification Number (DIN), contrary to CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019. On the first issue, the legal position is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [(2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)] has decisively explained that where Parliament and ITR 430 (Bom)] the delegated notification have assigned jurisdiction to the faceless unit, the jurisdiction of the local officer stands eclipsed. The scheme does not contemplate a concurrent or overlapping authority. Any notice issued dehors the faceless framework is coram non judice and the proceeding is void at inception. The exposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is coram non judice and consequently void ab initio. 42.1. This view now stands further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753 of 2025], wherein the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Writ Petition No. 23573 of 2024 upholding the invalidity of notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under section 148 was dismissed. The dismissal of the SLP lends the imprimatur of the Apex Court to the settled proposition that reassessment notices issued outside the framework of the faceless scheme are jurisdictionally incompetent. 42.2. In the absence of any contrary authority or distinguishing factual matrix, we are bound to follow the consistent line of judicial precedent emanating from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. None of these decisions have been stayed, modified, or reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, these binding pronouncements of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court command full precedential authority over this Tribunal." 42.3 to 47...... 48. The cumulative effect of our findings leads inexorably to the conclusion that both the reassessment proceedings and the

49 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

resultant assessment orders are unsustainable. The notice under section 148, issued by an authority bereft of jurisdiction under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, is void ab initio....." The Appellant respectfully pray that the order passed by jurisdictional High court and jurisdictional Tribunal based on exactly similar facts & circumstances be followed and the impugned order passed under section 148 be quashed. Proposition 2 Defective notice issued under section 148 Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant respectfully submits that the reassessment proceedings are invalid in law, as the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is fundamentally defective. It is an undisputed fact, as recorded by the AO himself in the assessment by the Assessing officer in the Assessment order, that no search under section 132 was ever carried out in the case of the Appellant. Despite this, the notice issued under section 148 (Page No. 50 to 51 of Paper Book) proceeds on the erroneous premise that a search had been conducted against the Appellant. Such a defective notice vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and renders them liable to be quashed. The relevant extract of the notice issued under section 148 is reproduced below for your ready reference, To, RAJKUMAR GULABCHAND LADNIYA 26 SIDDHARCH ARCADE, STATION ROAD OPP MIDC CAMP AURANGABAD 431005, Maharashtra, India PAN: A.Y: Dated: DIN & Notice No: AAHPL291 201 03/04/20 ITBA/ASSESSMENT/S/148_1 0M 6-17 23 /2023-24/1051861090(1) Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Sir/Madam/M/s. I have information that a search was initiated under Section 132 of the Act in your case or in the case of the person in respect of which you are the assessable under the Act on the date 07/10/2021.

50 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the full bench decision of the Hon'Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Sheik (2021) 125 taxmann.com253). 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 reassessment proceedings under section 148. This issue is covered by the Tribunal order in the case of Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited for AY 2012-13 (ITA No.3220/Mum/2025) (Page No.52 to 89 of Paper Book) wherein the Hon' Tribunal has quashed the assessment order for want of jurisdiction. Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited is a part of Seksaria group whose assessment was also reopened based on diaries and loose papers seized from the premises of Estate. Relevant observation from the ITAT order is reproduced below for your ready reference: 'The third legal infirmity relates to the manner in which the impugned notice dated 27.01.2023 has been issued under section 148. The AO has issued the notice under section 148 on the ground that the search was conducted on the assesse despite the fact that no search was ever conducted on the assesse. The reliance on the full bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd Farhan A Sheik (125 taxmann.com 253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective.' The cumulative effect of our findings leads inexorably to the conclusion that both the reassessment proceedings and the resultant assessment orders are unsustainable. The notice under section 148, issued by an authority bereft of jurisdiction under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, is void ab initio. The assessment order, bereft of a valid, pre-generated DIN, stands condemned by the express stipulations of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, as interpreted by the binding judgments of the jurisdictional and other High Courts. The Revenue, though afforded ample opportunity, has not demonstrated compliance with any of the statutory or procedural conditions that could lend legitimacy to its actions. In this view of the matter, the entire reassessment exercise is vitiated at inception, and all consequential proceedings are rendered nullities in the eye of law.

51 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

For the sake of clarity and completeness, it is hereby recorded that: (i) additions made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land, are deleted in full; (ii) assessments reopened under section 147 are quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A; (iii) 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 (iv) 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, and levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C are rendered academic in view of the annulment of the primary assessment orders. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case. The Appellant prays that the notice issued under section 148 should be quashed." Decision on Ground no. 1: 14. I have carefully considered ground no. 1 raised by the appellant along with the written submissions and the material available on record. This ground challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147, on various legal and jurisdictional grounds. 14.1 In the present appeal, the substantive additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were the subject matter of grounds nos. 2 to 4, have already been examined and deleted in full on merits. Thus, the appellant has been granted complete relief in respect of the additions challenged in the impugned reassessment order. In view of the deletion of all the additions forming the basis of the reassessment, no further effective or substantive issue survives for adjudication in this appeal. 14.2 It is a settled principle that where the additions made in the reassessment have been deleted on merits, and the appeal stands allowed in full, adjudication of the legal ground challenging the reopening becomes unnecessary and academic. Any decision on such legal issues would be merely of academic interest and would not alter the outcome of the appeal. Accordingly, in view of the fact that all additions made in the impugned reassessment order have already been deleted, ground no. 1 is not adjudicated and is treated as infructuous/academic. 15. The appellant has sought liberty to add, amend, omit or alter the grounds of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. It is observed

52 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

that no such request has been made during the appellate proceedings, nor has any additional or amended ground been pressed for adjudication. Accordingly, this ground does not call for any separate adjudication and is treated as general in nature. 16. In the result, the appeal of the appellant for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed. II. No. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai/11198/2014-15 for AY 2015-16 17. The appellant has raised grounds of appeal for the present appeal as under: "Ground No 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 8[1] (hereinafter referred to as the AO erred in re-opening the Appellants case under section 148 of the Act. The Appellants submits that the conditions required under section 148/section 149[1] [b] for reopening the assessment and in particular, Explanation no 2 are not satisfied and therefore the reopening under section 148 is bad in law and void ab initio. The Appellants therefore pray that the Order passed by the AO under section 147/143(3) be quashed. Ground no.2(a) (Loose Paper/Statement) Without prejudice to above, The AO erred in concluding that the Appellant has allegedly made aggregate cash investment of Rs.1,45,00,000 in Veda Trade Infra LLP during various assessment years based on the loose paper sheet marked as Page No.71 of Annexure A-1 (herein after referred to as 'Loose Paper') seized from the premises of Sekseria group and in accordingly making an addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000 under section 69A/69B being unaccounted investment made by the Appellants during the year under consideration. The Appellant respectfully submit that the AO has grossly erred in facts and law in making the above additions. Ground No.2(b) Without prejudice to above and even assuming but not admitting that the statement made by Mr.Tarun Sekseria in the context of some other loose sheet can be extrapolated to the Loose Paper (Page 79-A-1), the same cannot be used against the Appellant to conclude that he has made unaccounted investment of Rs. 1,11,00,000 and making an additions of Rs 1,11,00,000 under section 69B of the Act without any further corroborative evidence Ground No.2(c)

53 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Without prejudice to above, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act. The Appellant submit that the provisions of section 69B are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of his case. Ground No.2(d) Without prejudice to above, in any case no addition can be made in the hands of the Appellant as he has not made any investment in his individual capacity during the year under consideration. Ground No.2(e) Without prejudice to above, the total investment by Rajuji in Veda Trade LLP is Rs.1,07, 12,500 and not Rs. 1,45,00,000. The Appellant respectfully submit that the AO has factually erred in his observation that the sheet refers to investment of Rs.1,45,00,000. The Appellant respectfully submits that the addition, if at all, should be restricted to Rs.73,12,500 (Rs.1,11,00,000-Rs.37,87,500) during the year under consideration. Ground No.2(f) Without prejudice to above, even assuming but not admitting that the statement of Mr. Tarun Sekseria can be relied upon, no addition can be made in the hands of Appellant as Mr. Tarun Sekseria has mentioned that the investment was made by RL Group. The Appellant respectfully submits that since his name has not been mentioned by Tarun Sekseria, no addition can be made in his hands by relying on his statement. The Appellant therefore prays that suitable directions be given to the AO in the matter. The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be given suitable directions and the addition of Rs 1,11,00,000 be deleted. Ground No.3(a) (Diaries) The AO erred in invoking the provisions of section 69A in respect of various entries found in the diaries maintained by Mr. Pawan Sharma and seized from the premises of Sekseria Group and thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000, which comprises of the following entries in the diary: Date Amount paid by the Appellant 3.3.2015 25,00,000 13.1.2015 15,00,000

54 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

19.1.2015 35,00,000 23.1.2015 25,00,000 75,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total The Appellant submits that the addition made by the AO is bad in law as they are based on unsubstantiated presumptions, conjectures and surmises. Ground No.3(b) Without prejudice to above, the AO erred in granting telescoping only to the extent of Rs.31,00,000 instead of Rs.56,00,000. The Appellant submits that the payment of Rs.56,00,000 should be subsumed against the alleged cash investment of Rs. 1,11,00,000 as otherwise it will amount to taxing Rs.25,00,000 twice in the hands of Appellant. Ground No.3(c) Without prejudice to above, the AO erred in taxing the amount of Rs. 75,00,000 as peak credit without appreciating the fact that the net receipt in the hands of Appellant was Rs. Nil. Ground No.3(d) Without prejudice then the peak credit should be computed in respect of all the un- telescoped receipt and payment during the year. The Appellant therefore prays that suitable directions be given to the AO in the matter. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal." 18. The appellant has made identical written submissions as those made in Appeal No. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai/10935/2015-16 for AY 2016-17, as reproduced above. Other facts and background of the case remain the same. Since all the grounds involved in Appeal No. No. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai/11198/2014-15 for AY 2015-16 are identical to the one that is discussed above in CIT(A)-50, Mumbai/10935/2015-16 for AY 2016-17, the undersigned findings for AY 2016-17 with respect to these grounds would mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal for AY 2015-16 as well. The grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed.” 7. After having considered the decision order of Ld. CIT(A) we found that the additions were made by the AO primarily relying

55 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

upon the excel sheet seized on 07.10.2021 and the statement of TNS and NKS. However, the excel sheet which was recovered from the Laptop of Tarun Seksaria, indicated nothing with regard to purchase of land at Dapoli. Even the statement of TNS was recorded in respect of this excel sheet u/s 132(4) of the Act on 09.10.2021. However, the land parcel concerning assessment year for year under consideration is located at Dapoli therefore it has now became more relevant to go through the extract of the statement of DNS in respect of Dapoli land which was recorded on 09.10.2021. In reply to question no. 25, the TNS specifically stated that the sheet shows total 1/3rd Dapoli land acquired through Veda Trade Infra LLP and similarly in reply to question no. 26 and 27, the TNS specifically stated that the total application for acquisition of Dapoli land was Rs. 2,07,54,500/- and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1,02,04,500 was the cash payment made out of the books for acquisition of the Dapoli land further TNS stated that the cash document was relied from release of rights and ground of NOC from the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. whose land parcel is at Meera Bhayandar. 8. Another loose papers dated 16.12.2019 titled Veda Trade Infra LLP marked as annexure 1 at page 71 (herein referred to as ‘loose sheet’) was seized which founded the basis of addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000. However, no statement was recorded in respect of the said loose papers. After evaluating the loose sheet which has been reproduced in the written submission filed by the assessee, the said loose paper contained various notings against

56 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

the name of Tarun Seksaria and the assessee. Based on these notings in the loose paper, an addition was made in the hands of Tarun Seksaria in AY. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2020-2021 and addition were also made in the hands of respondents i.e. present assessee in AY. 2015-16, 2016-17 and AY. 2018-19. However, despite the fact that no statement was recorded in respect of the said sheet and on presumption that the amount mentioned in the column (B) represents unaccounted investment in Dapoli land. 9. The present appeal filed by the revenue relates to AY. 2015- 16 and is with regard to deletion of additions of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- made in the hands of assessee. It is important to mention here that TNS had already retracted statement vide letter dated 22.12.2022 “thus in the absence of corroboratory evidence, no addition could have been made in the hands of assessee.” 10. We noticed that the additions were deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that since these additions were made on account of unaccounted investment in Dapoli land. Thus the same was deleted by relying upon the order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Tarun Seksaria in ITA No. 3215/Mum/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 wherein an addition of Rs. 35 lacs were made in the hands of TNS on the basis of same loose sheet which was deleted on the ground that loose sheets are loose sheet is an uncorroborated dumped documents and thus has no evidentiary value especially in view of the retraction of the statement by TNS. Apart from this the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 3215/Mum/2025 decided on 28.10.2025, ITA No.

57 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

3221/Mum/2025 decided on 28.11.2025 and Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 3233/Mum/2025 vide order dated 09.03.2026 deleted the additions under the identical set of facts. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions made in the year under consideration. Thus, the issue and question is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT. Moreover, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act which was based on rough diaries was also deleted by holding that these diaries were maintained by the cashier of the group i.e. Pawan Kumar Sharma for his personal use whereas A.O. in his order has mentioned certain notes appearing in the name of ‘Raju Ji’ in the said diaries represented unexplained income of the assessee and accordingly made addition of One Crore u/s 69A of the Act while relying upon the statement of PKS in concluding that the entry in the name of diary represents unaccounted income of the assessee despite the fact that PKS has not identified the nature of transaction in his statement and had left it to the MKS to explain. We also noticed that PKS had also clarified that the entries contained in the diaries were rough entries, some transactions may not have taken place or may have been cancelled. Therefore, the additions of Rs. One Crore made on the basis of entries of dumped diaries was deleted by CIT(A) while relying upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in case of Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 3228/Mum/2025 for AY. 2015-16 wherein also ‘additions made in the hands of Estate were based on same set of rough

58 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

diaries maintained by PKS’ for his personal use and even otherwise the said rough diaries were uncorroborated dump document and has no evidentiary value especially in view of the retraction of statement by PKS. We noticed that the addition of Rs. one crore made on the basis of rough diaries were dealt by relying upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3228/Mum/2025 AY. 2016-17 wherein the addition was made in the hands of Estate investment based on the same set of rough diaries maintained by PKS for his personal use on the ground that rough diaries were uncorroborated damp document and has no evidentiary value. Since, Ld. CIT(A) had granted the relief by deleting the addition by relying upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT under the identical set of facts. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT had deleted the additions in ITA No. 3228/Mum/2025 AY. 2016-17. Even otherwise, no more new facts or circumstances have been put forth before us by Ld. DR in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore we upheld the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

C.O. No. 170/Mum/2026

59 ITA No.2122/Mum/2026 & CO No.170/Mum/2026 Rajkumar Gulabchand Ladniya

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22/07/2026 KK, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai