JITENDRA GAJARAM MALI,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai dated 01.10.2025, arising out of assessments framed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since common issues are involved in all the appeals and the assessee is the same, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

The brief facts emerging from the record are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Rubberwala Group on 17.03.2021. During the course of search, statement of Shri Imran Ansari, stated to be an employee of the group handling sale and registration of shops in Platinum Mall, was recorded and certain digital data in the form of an Excel sheet was stated to have been found from his possession. Based on the said material, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the present assessee had purchased a shop in Platinum Mall and had allegedly paid cash component aggregating to Rs.12,78,600/- spread over the impugned assessment years. Accordingly, proceedings under section 153C were initiated and additions were made in the hands of the assessee of Rs.2,00,000/- in A.Y. 2017-18, Rs.7,00,000/- in A.Y. 2018-19 and Rs.3,78,600/- in A.Y. 2019-20. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the additions and the assessee is in further appeal before us. For brevity, the grounds raised in A.Y. 2017-18 are reproduced as under:

The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned additions are wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. It was contended that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of search and the entire addition rests merely on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the alleged Excel data seized from a third party. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has neither furnished the complete Excel sheet to the assessee nor reproduced the relevant entries in the assessment order. The learned AR also emphasized that no opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh was granted despite specific reliance placed on their statements. It was further argued that the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in several cases arising out of the very same Rubberwala search have consistently deleted identical additions. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of Praveen Khetaram Purohit (ITA Nos.4742 to 4744/Mum/2025), Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra (ITA Nos.5553 & 5555/Mum/2025), Bhavana Vikram Jain (ITA Nos.6363 to 6365/Mum/2025), Bharat Solanki (ITA Nos.6523 to

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that during the course of search in the Rubberwala Group, incriminating digital data in the form of Excel sheet was found wherein the name of the assessee appears and therefore the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 153C and made the additions. According to the learned DR, the statement of Shri Imran Ansari clearly explained the modus operandi of receipt of on-money and therefore the additions deserve to be sustained.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also carefully gone through the assessment orders, the impugned appellate order and the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties. It is an admitted factual position that the additions in the present case have been made primarily on the basis of the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the alleged Excel sheet seized from his possession. It is further noticed that the Assessing Officer has neither supplied the Excel sheet to the assessee nor reproduced the specific entries allegedly relating to the assessee in the assessment orders. Even the date-wise details of the alleged cash payments have not been properly brought on record.

In our considered view, when the entire addition is founded upon a document seized from a third party, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to strictly comply with the principles of natural justice by confronting the assessee with the primary material and by establishing a clear nexus between the seized material and the assessee. In the present case, such essential exercise has not been carried out. The assessee has consistently denied having paid any on-money and once such denial is made, the burden squarely shifts upon the Revenue to bring cogent and independent corroborative evidence on record. However, we find that the Revenue has not brought any supporting material such as cash trail, confirmation from the builder, seized receipt, withdrawal linkage or any other incriminating material belonging to the assessee.

We find that the issue is no longer res integra. The coordinate benches of the Tribunal in a series of decisions arising from the very same search action on Rubberwala Group have consistently held that additions based merely on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and entries found in the excel sheet seized from his possession cannot be sustained in the absence of independent corroborative evidence.

In the present case also, there is no independent material brought on record to establish that the assessee has actually paid on- money. Further, the assessee was not even confronted with the complete Excel sheet or the exact entries allegedly pertaining to him. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the consistent view taken by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal on identical set of facts, we are of the considered opinion that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) are unsustainable in law.

Since the additions have been deleted on merits, the legal grounds challenging the validity of proceedings under section 153C are left open.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.