VIKAS VILAS RASAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-34(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vikas Vilas Rasal Assistant Commissioner of Flat no. 1302, Bldg no. 11, Income Tax, Circle- 34(3), Sarvodaya CHS, Khernagar, Vs. Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai Room no. 832, 8th Floor 400051 Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G-Block BandraKurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. PAN/GIR No. AAUPR5121K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue by Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14. The following grounds are reproduced below: Ground no. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in Page 1 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in making the additions in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not an abated assessment, without any incriminating documents were found during the course of search. Ground no. 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 10% of the declared agricultural income, amounting to Rs. 85,013/-, by estimating alleged inflation in agricultural income, without any cogent material or evidence to substantiate such estimation. Ground 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has eared in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- as alleged undisclosed income by treating the SRA Properties (advance) of Shri Rahul Patil (Rs. 40,00,000/-) and Shri Pratik Shinde (Rs. 40,00,000/-), as Benami properties of the appellant, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground 4: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has eared in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in making an addition relying upon statement of third parties without confronting such statement to the appellant and without providing copy of such statement/material. Ground 5: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) as well as learned Assessing Officer has erred in not appreciating the fact that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was retracted. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 2. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Assessee submitted that he does not want to press grounds nos. 1 and 2 raised in the present appeal, consequently these grounds stand dismissed as not pressed.

Page 2 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal Ground nos. 3 to 5 3. These grounds raised by the Assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of ld. CIT (Appeal) in confirming the addition of Rs. 80 lacks made by AO on the ground of undisposed income by considering the SRA properties as benami properties of the Assessee, therefore, we have decided to adjudicated these grounds through the present consolidated order. 4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgment cited before us and also the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. 5. From the records we notice that the issue in question relates to purchase of two properties by the Assessee in benami names i.e. Rahul Patil and Prateek Shinde. During the course of search action on the Assessee's premises, certain documents in the nature of agreement for purchase of SRA properties were found. As per the said documents these two properties have been purchased from the slum dwellers and cash of Rs. 40 lacks each was paid for the same. The said agreements were made in the name of nephew of the Assessee i.e. Prateek Shinde and his brother-in-law Rahul Patil and the Assessee in his sworn statement recorded that during the search he admitted that the said properties were purchased by him in the name of his relatives. The said statement of the Assessee was also confirmed by Rahul Patil and Prateek Shinde in their respective statements Page 3 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal recorded during the search action. Thus, based on the documents found during the search action and on the basis of sworn statement of the Assessee and the said two relatives, the additions of Rs. 80 lacks were made to the income of the Assessee. 6. Whereas on the other hand the said additions were categorically challenged by the Assessee by submitting that the additions have not been made on the basis of incriminating documents found during the course of such proceedings and were based on the statement of the Assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was retracted immediately and thus the said statements which were made before the investigation team could not be the basis for the additions. 7. After having meticulously gone through the facts of the case we also notice that it is an undisputed fact that the search and seizer action was carried out at the premises of the Assessee and his relatives, however, addition was made by the AO of Rs. 80 lacks on account of benami properties holding that the properties held by Rahul Patil and Prateek Shinde (Rs. 40 lacks each) were held by them on behalf of the Assessee. We notice that the said additions were made purely and solely on the basis of statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which were retracted immediately and the said retraction was also filed by the Assessee with the investigation wing on 22.07.2017 and a copy of which has already been placed on record in paper book at page nos. 1 to 3 it is important to mention here and proceedings further that it is Page 4 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal a settled law that no addition could be made solely on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search Reliance is being placed on the decision in the case of Kailashben Manharilal Chokshi v. CIT (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held as under: "Merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subjected to addition, unless and until some corroborative evidence was found in support of such admission." Besides, in the case of Shreechand Soni v. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Jodhpur) 1028, it has been observed by the bench; "Statement recorded under section 132(4) does not tantamount to unearthing any incriminating evidence during the course of search." 8. Moreover, even in the case of Dharampal Gulati v. Deptt. Of Income Tax ITA no. 671/Del./2012 and in the case of Arun Kumar Bhansali v. DCIT (2006) 10 SOT 46 (Banglore); it has been held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act does not tantamount to unearthing any incriminating evidence during the course of search in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Thus, while dealing with the facts of the present case we notice that the addition made in the case of Assessee was only and solely on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4) of the Act by referring to unregistered sale deed with regard to the aforesaid two properties. Although Rahul Patil and Prateek Shinde stated that the impugned properties were registered in their name but there were no such registered documents existed and even the documents found during the course of search pertains to Rahul Patil and PrateekShinde and placed on paper book page nos. 17 to 28 are merely an unregistered sale deed without any reference of sale amount of undated affidavit along with power of attorney. Page 5 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal In our view, these documents which are unregistered, do not have any legal validity, as any sale deed without any consideration being mentioned therein do not convey any legal or valid right in the property. Further undated and unregistered power of attorney is also not valid for the purpose of transfer of ownership in the property as has already been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that property transactions via general power of attorney, agreement to sale do not convey title of transfer of ownership as only registered sale deed transfers, valid title thereby rendering GPA based sales as invalid. 9.We also notice that Rahul Patil had given advance payment of Rs. 2 lacks which is duly reflected in his bank statements and the balance sheet filed before the AO, a copy of the above document have already been placed on paper book as page no. 29 to 36. In the case of PrateekShinde the documents found during the course of search comprises of documents which are at paper book page nos. 35 to 42 which includes a blank form of Kararnama where there is no reference of Assessee as well as that of Prateek Shinde. In our view, it is a document between the developer HDIL and Mr. Bandyalrayya Ramiya (owner of the structure), which has nothing to do with Mr. Prateek Shinde, thus calling these document as registered documents for the property in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of the Assessee and his relatives clearly shows that the statement Page 6 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act were not voluntarily. During the assessment proceedings Assessee had categorically submitted that both the properties mentioned therein are still in the name of original owner which could have been confirmed by the AO, but AO had not carried out any verifications or investigations on this aspect and had made additions merely on the basis of statement. 10. It has also been brought to our notice that the original owners had also filed legal proceedings before Hon'ble High Court as there was delay in the construction of redevelopment property. A copy of the said legal proceedings filed by the real owner has already been placed on record at paper book page no. 43 to 63 which clearly demonstrate that the impugned properties in question are still owned by the same owner. Even no enquiry was carried out by the AO on this aspect. 11. Ld. CIT (Appeal) had confirmed the additions made by the AO by taking into consideration that the Adjudicating Authority u/s 71 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 vide its order dated 30.10.2018 had held that property in the name of Rahul Patil is a Benami Property and is a subject matter of benami transaction. Whereas the said order was quashed by the Tribunal on the plea that the impugned transaction was prior to 2016. However, because of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court larger bench decision, the matter was recalled and is still pending for disposal. The latest position has not been placed on record with regard to the proceedings under the prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988. In these circumstances Page 7 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal Ld. CIT (Appeal) was expected to verify the evidences placed on record by the parties independently without getting influenced by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authorities under Benami Property Transaction Act 1988. Thus, looking into the entirety of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that Assessee could not be termed as owner of the property in question merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act without any corroborative evidences and more particularly when the statement made had already been retracted by the Assessee and also by Rahul Patil and Prateek Shinde. Thus, in our view, the additions made by the AO and upheld by ld. CIT (Appeal) in the absence of any corroborative or independent evidences needs to be deleted. Thus we ordered accordingly and direct the AO to delete the additions made in the present case, consequently, ground nos. 3 to 5 raised by the Assessee stands allowed. 12. In the net result appeal of the Assessee stand partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/04/2026 Ankit, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Assessee 1. Page 8 of 9

ITA No. 6903/Mum/2025 Vikas Vilas Rasal प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

Page 9 of 9