NIOTESH KUMAR NAHTA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,OF INCOME TAX, 4(1), INDORE, AAYKAR BAHWAN, INDORE

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ hereinafter referred to as the Act

for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a

second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing no: - ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083490186(1)

dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2020-21 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2019 to

31.03.2020.

2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s

147 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 24,27,140/-. The total income

as per the ITR filed in the response to the notice u/s 148 of

Act was at Rs. 12, 52,440/-. An addition of Rs. 11,

74,700/- was made u/s 69 of the Act. That the aforesaid

assessment order bears no: - ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-

25/1075138219(1) and that the same is dated 27.03.2025

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

Assessment Order”.

2.2 That the Assessee originally had filed a return of Income

for the assessment year 2020-21 on 28.12.2020 declaring

the total income of Rs. 12,52,440/-. The said return was

processed under section 143(1) of the act.

2.3 Subsequently the department of the Income Tax received

an information related to the present assessee from the deputy director of the Income tax (Inv) 2 Chandigarh vide

letter dated 29.01.2024 stating that during the course of the

search and the seizure action u/s 132 of the act in the

group cases of Omaxe Group, some incriminating

documents have been found and seized, which establishes

the involvement of the assessee. The case of the assessee

was found to fall under clause (iv) of the explanation- 2 of

the section 148 of the act, since the books of accounts or the

documents seized u/s 132 of the act in case of “any other

persons pertains or pertain to, or any information contained

therein”, after taking the approval from the specified

authority u/s 151 of the act, the present assessee’s case was

reopened u/s 147 of the act and a notice u/s 148 of the act

was issued on 29.03.2024 to the assessee herein.

2.4 As stated above, the assessee filed the ROI u/s 148 of

the act on 23.05.2024 declaring once again the total income

at Rs. 12,50,440/-.

2.5 That notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the act was issued to the

assessee from time to time. Certain responses were too

received from the assessee.

2.6 Notice(s) dated 07.01.2025 and 19.03.2025 was issued to

the assessee and that the assessee filed response vide letter

dated 14.01.2025 and 22.03.2025.

2.7 The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has

made following observations which were as under:-

(a) As per the information received from the DDIT

[investigation]-2, Chandigarh a search and seizure action

u/s 132 of the act was carried on 14.03.2022 in cases of

Omaxe Group of cases.

(b) The Omaxe Group is engaged in the real estate sector.

(c) The search action of the Dept. of Income Tax on the

Omaxe Group led to the seizure of voluminous evidence

consisting of around 70,000/- pages. 70 hard drives/ CDs;

5 laptops and 4 mobile phones which led to the

identification of annexures A 35 which is a hard disk

found and seized during the search proceedings at 14

local shopping centre kalkaji, New Delhi [office of Omaxe

Ltd.]. It’s “Forensic image” was made and that the same

was seized as Annexure 27.

(d) “Examination and analysis of the Annexure A27 led to

the identification of folders named MAIN REPORT DATA'

and 'SHYAM NEERAV PANKAJ PANDEY wherein

comprehensive data of the unaccounted transactions

(both receipts and payments) undertaken by the Omaxe

group entities were found to be recorded in the MAIN

REPORT excel files. These are maintained on calendar

year basis and titled 'MAIN REPORT in the excel files.

These files had three different sheets namely 'RECEIPT

(S)', 'PAYMENT(S)' and 'CLOSING RECEIPT(S) sheets

contained the details of unaccounted cash receipts of the

Omaxe Group.”

(e) “Data in the MAIN REPORT excel files was substantiated

with bank account statements of different entities of

Omaxe group, oral evidence of its employees and

statements recorded under oath of its customers Further,

it was ascertained/correlated that information contained in

documents/digital data seized from different premises

across different states was related with Omaxe group

found included in the MAIN REPORT excel files under consideration. Most important finding is amounts

reflected in the "Main Report" excel files are suppressed

by a factor of 100.”

(f) “As per the information available on record, property Unit

No. OAl/225 and Unit No. OA1/212 was purchased by Shri

Nitesh Kumar Nahata in the project OMAXE ANANDAM of

Omaxe Limited. It is further known that Shri Nitesh Kumar

Nahata paid cash amounting to Rs. 11,74,700/- during FY

2019-20.”

2.8 That it is recorded in the “Impugned Assessment

Order” that vide submissions dated 10.07.2024 the

assessee has accepted the fact that it had booked two

property/units with M/s Omaxe Ltd. being Unit No:-

OA1/225 and Unit No:- OA1/212 in the project called

“Omaxe Anandam”. Payments of advance were made by

banking channels. However the assessee did not provide

any details of cash payments in respect of aforesaid

properties. Cash payments were denied. That the assessee

vide submission dated 28.08.2024 reiterated that payments were made through banking channels towards purchase of

above properties.

2.9 In response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 07.01.2025 a

submission dated 13.01.2025 was made wherein assessee

has denied any cash payments. The assessee stated that he

does not maintain personal books of accounts and cash book.

He does not have huge amount of cash. Copy of bank

statement was provided. The Assessee did not have anything

else to state in respect of cash payments as supra vide Para

2.7(a) to (f) as recorded by us and the Ld. AO.

2.10 That a show cause notice dated 19.03.2025 was

issued to the Assessee calling upon him to show cause as to

why the addition of Rs. 11, 74,700/- should not be made

to the total income of the assessee on the account of

“Unaccounted Transaction” (cash payments) towards the

purchase of immovable property (supra). The Assessee made

submission vide letter dated 22.03.2025. Reliance was

placed on earlier submissions dated 10.07.2024, 28.08.2024

and 13.01.2025. The Assessee reiterated its details of

payment and placed reliance on the “Confirmation letter”

from Omaxe Ltd., registered deed etc. No details in respect of

cash payments were provided. The payment of cash was

denied to Omaxe Group. Proposed addition basis “excel

sheet” named “Main Report Files” extracted from

Annexure 27 seized during search and seizure operations

cannot be made as the said excel sheet is not authenticated

by the assessee. It is a third party records in editable

electronic formal like excel which is not reliable piece of

evidence, without actual cash receipts, witness statements

etc. Cross examination of deponents were too sought.

2.11 The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has

held as follows:-

“7.8 The case records and the submission of the assessee as detailed above have been carefully examined. The contentions of the assessee are not found to be satisfactory. The claim of the assessee that no cash payments were made by it stands completely rebutted by the documentary and testamentary evidences unearthed during the course of search proceedings. Seized digital evidence and statement on oath of Shri Juneja and Shri Garg clearly establish that comprehensive data of the unaccounted transactions (both receipts and payments) undertaken by the Omaxe group entities were found to be recorded in the MAIN REPORT excel files. These are maintained on calendar year basis and titled 'MAIN REPORT' in the excel files. These files had three different sheets namely 'RECEIPT(S); PAYMENT(S)' and 'CLOSING, RECEIPT(S) sheets contained the details of unaccounted cash receipts of the Omaxe Group. 7.9 It is further established that data in the MAIN REPORT excel files was substantiated with bank account statements of different entities of Omaxe group, oral evidence of its employees and statements recorded under oath of its customers and it was ascertained/correlated that information contained in documents/digital data seized from different premises related with Omaxe group across different states was found included in the MAIN REPORT excel files under consideration. It is further established that amounts reflected in the "Main Report excel files are suppressed by a factor of 100. Accordingly it is established that as per the information available on record, property Unit No. OAI/225 and Unit No. OAI/212 was purchased by Shri Nitesh Kumar Nahata in the project OMAXE ANANDAM of Omaxe Limited and that the assessee Shri Nitesh Kumar Nahata paid cash amounting to Rs. 11,74,700/-during FY 2019-20 towards the said purchase of immovable property. It is a settled principle of law that when direct and corroborative evidence is available, a mere denial by the assessee without substantive proof does not hold any merit. The burden of proof lies upon the assessee to refute the findings with credible evidence, which he has failed to discharge. In light of the conclusive evidence gathered, the denial of cash payment by the assessee is untenable and lacks credibility. Further the assessee's request for cross examination of the deponents has been carefully considered. In this respect, it is observed that the right of cross examination is not an absolute right. (Nath International Sales vs. UOI, AIR1992 (Del) 295). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the right of hearing does not necessarily include right of cross examination. The right of cross examination must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967SC122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.). It is observed that in the instant case, incriminating evidence has been found during the course of search & seizure action carried out by the Investigation Wing as detailed above. In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as on examination of "Main Report" excel file and post search enquiry documents, it is categorically established that the assessee has made the said unaccounted cash payments towards purchase of immovable property. It is further observed that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in the Income Tax Proceedings. Thus the request of the assessee for cross examination of deponents was not found satisfactory.

“7.10 In view of the above, amount of Rs. 11,74,700/- was

hereby added to the total income of the assessee as

unexplained investment under Section 69 and is taxable at

the applicable rate under Section 115BBE of the Act”.

2.12 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

Impugned Assessment Order prefers the first appeal u/s

246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the

“Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the

Assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The

core grounds and reasons for dismissal of the first appeal

were as under:-

“5. The appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 28.12.2020 declaring total income of 12,52,440/-. The AO had information that during the course of Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in the group cases of Omaxe Group, some incriminating documents have been found and seized, which establishes the involvement of the appellant. As per the information, property Unit No. OAI/225 and Unit No. OA1/212 was purchased by Shri Nitesh Kumar Nahata in the project OMAXE ANANDAM of Omaxe Limited and that he had paid cash amounting to Rs. 11,74,700/- during FY 2019-20. Based on the above information the assessment was reopened under section 147, and a notice under section 148 was on 29.03.2024. The appellant, during the assessment proceedings denied making cash payments towards the purchase of the said immovable property. The AO after considering the submissions of the appellant held that Rs. 11,74,700/- is unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

6.1 The submissions of the appellant are considered. On perusal of the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant it is seen that the assessment for the year under consideration was reopened based on the information that search operation was carried out in the case of OMAXE Group and it was found that the said entity had accepted cash payments from various customers for the purchase of property in the project OMAXE ANANDAM. The AO had information that the appellant had made cash payment of Rs.11,74,700/- for the purchase of a property from Omaxe Ltd. From the assessment order it is seen that the AO has elaborately discussed the modus operandi involved in these transactions wherein cash payments were received over and above the payments made through banking channels for the purchase of property. The AO has clearly brought on record the details of the payment made by the appellant as retrieved from the electronic devices/ computer devices seized during the course of the search action. The relevant portion of the assessment order is as under: "7. The case records and the submission of the assessee has been carefully perused. Accordingly, the following observations are made. 7.1 As per the information received from the DDIT(Inv.)-2. Chandigarh, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out on 14.03.2022 in the cases of Omaxe Group of cases. The Omaxe Group is engaged in real estate sector Search action on Omaxe group led to seizure of voluminous evidence consisting of around 70,000 pages. 70 hard drives/CDs, 5 laptops and 4 mobile phones which led to the identification of Annexure A35 which is a hard disk found and seized during the search proceedings at 14 Local Shopping Centre. Kalkaji, New Delhi (Office of Omaxe Limited). Also, its forensic image was made and the same was seized as Annexure A27. 7.2 Examination and analysis of the Annexure A27 led to the identification of folders named MAIN REPORT DATA' and 'SHYAM NEERAV PANKAJ PANDEY wherein comprehensive data of the unaccounted transactions (both receipts and payments) undertaken by the Omaxe group entities were found to be recorded in the MAIN REPORT excel files. These are maintained on calendar year basis and titled 'MAIN REPORT in the excel files. These files had three different sheets namely RECEIPT (S), PAYMENT(S) and CLOSING RECEIPT(S) sheets contained the details of unaccounted cash receipts of the Omaxe Group.

7.3 Data in the MAIN REPORT excel files was substantiated with bank account statements of different entities of Omaxe group, oral evidence of its employees and statements recorded under oath of its customers Further, it was ascertained/correlated that information contained in documents/digital data seized from different premises related with Omaxe group across different states was found included in the MAIN REPORT excel files under consideration. Most important finding is amounts reflected in the "Main Report" excel files are suppressed by a factor of 100.

7.4 As per the information available on record, property Unit No. OAI/225 and Unit No. OA1/212 was purchased by Shri Nitesh Kumar Nahata in the project OMAXE ANANDAM of Omaxe Limited. It is further known that Shri Nitesh Kumar Nahata paid cash amounting to Rs. 11,74,700/- during FY 2019-20.

Thus, it is evident that the data collected from the builder is specific and the details of the appellant is clearly given in the data that was retrieved from the computer system of the said entity. Thus, the data so gathered in the search proceedings is more specific and authentic. The assessment order also explains that the amount mentioned in hundreds is supressed by the factor of hundred and the actual amount is obtained by multiplying by 100. Thus, the elaborate discussion in the assessment order established beyond doubt that cash payments were made by the customers to the said entity for purchase of property. It is also shown that the appellant has made payment of Rs. 11,74,700/- in cash as evidenced by the data retrieved during the search proceedings. Therefore, the fact of payment in cash made by the appellant is established.

6.2 During the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings, the appellant has denied making any payment in cash to the said entity. The appellant has also furnished a certificate issued by the said entity to the effect that no cash payment was made by the appellant. The appellant submitted that the said entity has denied receiving any cash payment from the appellant and therefore, the addition is not sustainable. However, the findings of the cash transactions are supported by the data retrieved from the computer devices of the said entity and the statements recorded of the employees of the said entity u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, during the search proceedings. The employees had explained the modus operandi adopted in these cash transactions which is clearly discussed in the assessment order. It is pertinent to mention that the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act during search proceedings have immense legal force and evidentiary value. The statements so recorded cannot be discarded by simply observing that the said entity has denied the statement by filing a letter that no cash payments were made. Mere submission of a letter is not sufficient as no such denial by the entity is seen to have been made before the AO. The report of the investigation wing on account of a search proceeding cannot be simply brushed aside without the appellant showing that the contents of the statements recorded u/s 132(4) are incorrect and proving it to be wrong. The swom statement of the employees of the said entity and the data retrieved from the computer system of the said entity clearly point to the factum of cash payment of Rs. 11,74,700/- over and above the cost of purchase of the property. Therefore, in view of the findings of the search proceeding, as discussed above, the nature and source of the cash payment of Rs. 11,74,700/- remains unexplained. In the absence of any explanation regarding the nature and the source of the cash payment, the submission of the appellant in this regard is found to be not acceptable. Hence the action of the AO to treat the said cash payment as unexplained investment u/s 69 needs no interference.

6.3 The appellant has also submitted that it was not provided with the opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons named in the report of the investigation directorate, however no such request was made by the appellant before passing the assessment order. In the case of Swati Bajaj recorded in 139 Taxmann.com 352(Calcutta), the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta was examining a similar issue on whether the assessment would become bad in law for failure to furnish the investigation report and afford an opportunity to cross examine to the appellant. The Hon'ble High court of Calcutta further examined the settled cases on this issue and concluded that it is not necessary in every case that opportunity of cross examination needs to be given to the appellant. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant was issued a show-cause notice before completion of assessment and the appellant had responded to the said notice. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that opportunity of being heard was not given is incorrect and is not acceptable. The appellant further submitted that the AO blindly relied on third-party loose entries without conducting any independent enquiry or investigation and the order was passed in a mechanical manner. On perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the issue of cash payment made by the appellant for the purchase of property has been dealt with in an elaborate manner. The AO has discussed in detail the modus operandi followed by the builder and the appellant in making cash transactions with respect to the purchase of property. The AO has brought on record the details of the payments as maintained by the builder which was seized during the search proceedings. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that the AO has blindly relied on third party material and has mechanically passed the order has no merits and is hereby rejected. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

2.13 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this

tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in

the form no. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as

under:-

“1. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in initiating reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2020-21, which are illegal, invalid, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in sustaining the same.

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 23.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It

therefore deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR has placed on

the record of this tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 79 as per index. A compilation of judicial precedent is too

placed on record on paper book pages 1 to 55.

3.2 The Ld. AR submitted that ground no. 1 to 2 is not

pressed. The Ld. AR then read out ground no. 3 (supra). It

was stated before us basis Ld. AO “Impugned Assessment

Order” that the present proceedings against the assessee in

consequent to the search and seizure operation which were

carried out by the Dept. of Income Tax on Omaxe Group. All

these details are stated in the “Impugned Assessment Order”

which was read out. The purchase of two units (supra) was

spoken about and it was submitted that all the payments

were made through banking channels. Addition is based

basis excel sheet found during the search and seizure

operation on “Omaxe Group”. No payment in cash was made

as there is no evidence in this regard. Our attention was

then invited to paper book page 41 of PB which was copy of

confirmation by the M/s Omaxe Ltd. that the Unit No.

OA1/225 and OA1/212 were booked by the assessee and in

respect where off for the FY 2019-20 payment of sum of Rs. 2,

70,705/- in aggregate was made by cheques dated 29.06.2019 and 20.07.2019 for case no: - “OA1/86-Unit No.-

OA1/225” and yet another payment of booking for FY 2019-

20 in aggregate was made by cheques dated 28.06.2019 and

23.07.2019 for case no. - OA1/72-Unit No.-OA1/212 for

project namely “Omaxe Anandam” at Indore. It was further

confirmed that no other amount was received for FY 2019-20

in cash or through banking channel. Confirmation is as per

books of accounts.

3.3 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that basis of information

is in the nature of third party information and no cross

examination was allowed to the assessee. It was submitted

that no post search enquiry was conducted. The judgement

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber

Industries was not applied. Few judgements of ITAT and

High Courts were too not applied, in regard to plea of

assessee. It was submitted that addition has been made

basis assumption and presumptions.

3.4 Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the

Revenue submitted that no objection was taken by the

assessee when the reopening of assessment proceeding commenced and in this regard silence on the part of the

assessee is not objecting to the reasons for reopening of the

assessment amounts to acceptance to the objection and

nothing else.

3.5 The Ld. DR for the Revenue then submitted that there is

no express and explicit request by the assessee on inspection

of “excel sheet” was made. No statement of persons

expressing in explicit manner was sought by the assessee.

Therefore there is no express and explicit rebuttal to the

charges by the assessee is on record. Assessee is to be

blamed for this fiasco and not Dept. of Income Tax.

3.6 The Ld. DR submitted before us that in the excel sheet

name, unit etc. are all there. The statements made u/s

132 of act are not on record. These statements in law

have evidentiary value. The material found during search

and seizure operation carried out by the Dept. of Income

Tax was large and extensive and material found upon

search is stated in the proceedings. The material,

evidences, documents, electronic records, hard discs, laptops,

70,000 pages documents etc. have not come out of thin air.

The assessee was free to take inspection of the

documents and was at liberty to place the same before

lower authorities and before this tribunal which is a final

fact finding authority but the end result is that no

incriminating material and adversial material is on

record even before this tribunal. The excel sheets and

other material, documents, evidences etc. as full and whole

should be ready and available. The search and seizure

operations on whole of Omaxe Group was done having

implications in the different regions and cities of India.

The Omaxe Group appeals/proceedings for sure must be

before the appropriate authorities and would have direct

bearing not only in respect of assessee case but other

assessee too besides Omaxe Group itself. Those appeals/

proceedings are not before this tribunal as nothing is on

record of this tribunal. Search and seizure proceedings

are not normal proceedings. They are extra ordinary

proceedings. The confirmation discussed by the Ld. AR of

Omaxe Group is self-serving document which cannot be

relied upon. Excel sheet, statements etc. are not on record. Seized material is huge and voluminous. Hence it

would be just, fair and appropriate to set aside the

“Impugned Order” and remand the case back to the file of

the Ld. AO on De novo basis. Cross examination was not

sought basis any reason.

3.7 In the rejoinder argument the Ld. AR submitted basis

page 40 of the paper book that the cross examination of

witness relied upon by the Dept. was sought. The

submissions made before the Ld. CIT (A) dated 05.12.2025

page 12 to 20 were relied upon. Contents of page 18 & 19 of

PB were read out and emphasised. Para 6 of page 18 was

emphasised. Para 7 of page 19 was emphasised. It was

stated that search and seizure on Omaxe Group took place

on 14.03.2022. Booking was only made in the year under

consideration, whereas registry was done on next year

page 42 of PB was relied upon. The prayer of remand back

to the file of the Ld. AO as was sought by the Ld. DR was

opposed by the Ld. AR by stating that it would amount to

giving a second chance to the Dept. Our attention was drawn

to PB page 25 to 28, submission letter dated 28.08.2024 before the Ld. AO, PB page 29, 30 & 31 notice u/s 142(1)

dated 07.01.2025 and reply PB page 32. Our attention was

invited to PB page 36 the show cause notice dated

19.03.2025. In brief it was submitted that it was up to the

Ld. AO to have done the due inquiry. It was once again

repeated and reiterated that standalone statements cannot

be relied upon. The “Impugned Assessment Order” is based

on the assumptions and presumptions. The Ld. DR for the

Revenue stated that since statements and adversial material

is not record and without looking into the same it is not

possible to say much on the part of the revenue and

hence pressed hard for the matter back to the file of the

Ld. AO to make fresh assessment wherein overall

evidence, documents and material should be brought on

record, the assessee should reply to those aspects which

pertains to him as many parties are involved and in this

regard all details are available with the Ld. AO. The

assessee to take effective steps in this regard before the Ld.

AO and this tribunal too can issue appropriate directions to

the Ld. AO as revenue wants a full flegged adjudication and adjudgement of all such cases as it is a search and

seizure matter and finding in respect of present assessee

would have a cascading effects on other assessee

including Omaxe Group. The bench directed a 3 to 5 page

submissions in form of written statements to be filed by the

assessee’s AR with copy to the Ld. DR of Revenue. These

were later filed. Hearing was closed and concluded.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & further

upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld.

DR canvassed before us are of the considered opinion that

the “Impugned Assessment Order” is passed in the

violation of the principle of natural justice as no inspection of documents and/or adversial material seized during the

course of search and seizure operation on “Omaxe Group”

either over all or pertaining to assessee was supplied to

the assessee despite request. No statements u/s 132 is

on record. Material gathered during the post search

inquiry too was not shared with the assessee. We are

therefore of the considered view that Dept. of Income Tax

should give all the adversial material to the assessee before

making any addition. The same should be given without

even asking at least, With a show cause notice so that

assessee can meet the same. In this case there is

assertion by the Dept. of cash payment and denial of the

same by the assessee. The material, documents,

evidences, statements are all absent. The Ld. DR too has

expressed his inability to defend the case of the revenue and

has rightly cautioned that there are number of other

persons including the Omaxe Group whose interest would be

prejudicially affected by verdict of this tribunal. Hence in the

ends of justice and in the absence of material as discussed

aforesaid and further due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case we deem fit to set aside

the Impugned Order and remand the case back to the file of

the Ld. AO on De novo basis with a direction to him to first

disclose all the adversial material to the assessee

including statements, excel sheets, transcriptions of

hard disk, adverse material found on electronic mode

like laptops, CDs etc. so that assessee can set up his

defence. Be it be noted that the disclosure of the adversial

material not only assist assessee but all stake holders

including the revenue as equity and justice is dispensed

basis material and not on whims and fancy. Assumption

and presumptions has no basis in law to sustain the

addition. Therefore without expressing any opinion on

merits of the case we deem fit to set aside the Impugned

Order and remand the case back to the file of the Ld. AO

with directions as aforesaid. All contentions of assessee

are open. The assessee is at full and complete liberty to

raise all the other contentions as they deem fit before the Ld.

AO. The Ld. AO is expected to pass a speaking and a well- reasoned order on merit as income is liable to tax according

to law and by following and applying the due process of law.

4.4 In the premises drawn up by us the Impugned Order is

set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld.

AO on De novo basis with directions as aforesaid.

5 Order

5.1 In the result Impugned Order is set aside as and by way of

remand back to the Ld. AO on De novo basis with directions as

aforesaid.

5.2 Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 30.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 30/04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 25 of 25