TARUN NANDKUMAR SEKSARIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, Deputy Commissioner of Income 4th Floor, 139, Seksaria Tax – Central Circle – 8(1), 656, Chambers, Nagindas Master Vs. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 001, Maharashtra, India. 400020. PAN NO. ABAPS 5488 D Appellant Respondent

: Shri Pankaj Jain/Shri, M. Agarwal Assessee by : Shri Sunil Agawane (SR. DR) Revenue by

: 22/06/2026 Date of Hearing : 30/06/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2025, passed by the learned, Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 50, Mumbai [in short, ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’), 2020-21. The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the validity of the assessment order allegedly issued without a

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 2 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

Document Identification Number (DIN), the addition of ₹8,00,000/- made under sections 69A/69B of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash investment in purchase of land at Dapoli, and the consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. The grounds raised are reproduced as under:-

“Ground No.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-50. Mumbai (herein referred to as CIT (A) erred in holding that the DCIT Central Circle B(1) (herein referred to as AO) was right in reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act The Appellant submit that the conditions precedent to reopening of the assessment are not compiled with assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio and the Appellant pray that the Order be and the Order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and therefore the reopening of quashed. Ground no. 2 Without prejudice to the above the Appellants submit that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3) /148 has been issued without DIN and therefore this Order passed by the AO is a nullity in law and the Appellant pray that the same be quashed Ground no. 3 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO was right in making an addition of Rs. 8.00.000 under section 69A/69B as being cash applied towards purchase of land at Dapoli. The Appellant submit that the additions are made purely on surmises and conjectures and in any event, the provisions of section 69A/69B are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of their case. The Appellant therefore pray that the addition made under section 69A/69B should be deleted. Ground no. 4 The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act on 17.01.2021

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 3 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

declaring a total income of ₹25,84,770/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 07.10.2021 in the case of the assessee as well as in the cases of Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and other concerns of the Seksaria Group. During the course of the search, various documents, including diaries, loose papers and excel sheets, were found and seized. The Revenue alleged that the seized material disclosed unaccounted cash receipts and utilisation thereof towards acquisition of various parcels of land. The Assessing Officer observed that an excel sheet recovered from the desktop computer of Shri Tarun Seksaria contained details relating to acquisition of land at Village Dapoli through M/s Veda Tradeinfra LLP. According to the Assessing Officer, the said excel sheet, when read together with certain loose papers and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, indicated that the assessee had made cash investment outside the regular books of account for purchase of the said land.

2.1 Since the search was conducted after 31.03.2021, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 147 read with Explanation 2(i) to section 148 of the Act and, after obtaining the requisite approval from the specified authority, issued notice under section 148 on 28.10.2022. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return declaring the same income as originally returned.

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 4 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

2.2 During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the seized excel sheet, the statements recorded during the course of search and other material collected by the Investigation Wing. According to the Assessing Officer, the total cash component reflected in the seized material aggregated to ₹1,04,04,500/-, which was apportioned over different assessment years on the basis of cheque payments made towards acquisition of the land. Consequently, an amount of ₹8,00,000/- was attributed to the assessment year under consideration and treated as unexplained investment under sections 69A/69B of the Act.

2.3 The explanation furnished by the assessee that the excel sheet merely represented an internal working or projection prepared for discussion amongst the partners and did not record actual cash transactions was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Likewise, the plea that the alleged cash investment stood explained by the unaccounted cash generated in the hands of Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, the benefit of telescoping ought to be granted, was also not accepted for want of independent corroborative evidence. The reassessment was accordingly completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act by determining the total income at ₹33,84,770/- after making an addition of ₹8,00,000/- under sections 69A/69B of the Act.

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 5 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

jurisdiction under section 147 and the addition made on merits. The learned CIT(A), however, rejected the legal grounds challenging the reassessment and upheld the addition by holding that the seized excel sheet, read in conjunction with the statement recorded during the course of search and the other incriminating material, sufficiently established the assessee's investment of unaccounted cash in acquisition of the Dapoli land. The learned CIT(A) further held that the plea of telescoping was not available to the assessee in the absence of satisfactory evidence establishing a direct nexus between the alleged source of cash and the impugned investment. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

“ 18. I have carefully considered the assessment order, findings of the search and submission of the appellant. As discussed above, during the search conducted at the office premises at 402 Seksaria Chambers, Fort, Mumbai, an excel sheet related to the purchase of land at Agarsure Village by concern Veda Trade infra LLP was found from the computer of Tarun Kumar Seksaria. A scanned copy of this excel sheet is as under-. DESCRIPTION TNS HNS RL GROUP PG GROUP TOTAL PROFIT LOSS 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 100.00% SHARING RATIO TOTAL LAND 30.42 30.42 30.42 30.42 121.68 ACQUISITION (PROPOSED) LAND RATE / 575,000.00 575,000.00 575,000.00 575,000.00 575,000.00 PER ACRE TOTAL COST 17,491,715.63 17,491,715.63 17,491,715.63 17,491,715.63 69,966,862.50 OF ACQUISITION INVESTMENT 20,754,500.00 8,300,000.00 14,712,500.00 54,625,000.00 98,392,000.00 MADE TILL DATE TO - - - - - INVESTORS/ 28,425,137.50 28,425,137.50

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 6 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

REFUND TOTAL 20,754,500.00 8,300,000.00 14,712,500.00 26,199,862.50 69,966,862.50 AMOUNT PAID (A) Add: Expenses - - - 680,760.00 680,760.00 incurred (B) Total 20,754,500.00 8,300,000.00 14,712,500.00 26,880,622.50 70,647,622.50 Investment Made (A+B) % share 29.38% 11.75% 20.83% 38.05% - Investment wise 19. During the search, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act on 09.10.2021. The relevant portion of this statement is reproduced as under- "Q 25. During the search proceedings at the premise, we have found the following excel sheet in your official desktop computer regarding Dapoli Land. Do you confirm the same and explain. Ans. Sir, this sheet shows the total working of Dapoli Land acquired through M/s Veda Trade Infra LLP. I am partner in this firm. Originally it involved equity participation of Tarun N Sekseria(TNS), Harsh N Sekseria(HNS), Rajkumar Ladniya Group, Aurangabad (RL Group) also known as Raju Ji and Pratap Gambhir Group (PG Group) of 25% each. Currently, the participation of equity in this firm is 62% owned by me and remaining 38% is owned by Smt. Shilpa Pratap Gambhir as legal heir in place of her Late husband Shri Pratap D Gambhir. Q.26. Kindly explain the total application of money in the acquisition of Dapoli Land. Ans. Dir, the total application in this acquisition of Dapoli Land was Ra 2,07,54,500/- as seen in the row "Total Investment Made(A+B)" and Column TNS". Q.27. I am showing your balance sheet to you as annexure C(Page 1 to 4). Kindly confirm the same and furnish the reasons for mismatch between the application of money as found in table above and the balance sheet. Ans. Sir, I confirm the same and as per balance sheet, the total application of money accounted book is Rs 1,05,50,000/- and as per the actual application, it is Ro Ro 2,07,51,500/- the difference of Rs 1,02,01,500/- in the cash payment made out of books of account for acquisition of Dapoli Land. The cash component was derived from release of rights and At of NOCs from the The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd land parcels in Mira"

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 7 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

19.2 In the answer to question no 25, the appellant has confirmed that this excel sheet was found from the official desktop computer. The table shows various land parcels that he has acquired over the period of time in Dapoli Village by Veda Tradeinfra LLP wherein appellant is one of the partner. In the answer to question no 27, he has stated that the cash of Rs 1,04,04,500 was paid by him for purchase of Dapoli land. The source of such cash is from the release of rights by the Estate investment company. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the excel sheet represents the details of payments made towards purchase of lands at Dapoli Village. 20. Now coming to the contention of the appellant that no addition u/s 69B can be made in appellant's hand as addition of the same has already been made in the hands of Estate Investment Pvt Ltd. 20.2 During the search conducted on the Estate Invest company and its group concerns, 3 diaries and 8 loose paper diaries were also found from Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma (cashier of the group concern). Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma has admitted that these diaries are written and maintained by him. These diaries contain miscellaneous notings, including notings of unaccounted cash receipts and cash expenditure. The group concerns, namely the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., has some land parcels at Mira Bhayander area. This company received unaccounted cash as a compensation for release of rights in such Eksali land. Shri Kamal Bubna is the person who collects such cash and hands it over to Shri Pawan Sharma. Further, from the notings recorded in the diary and from the admission of Pawan Sharma, it is evident that this unaccounted cash received by the Estate Investment Pvt. Ltd. has been utilized for purchase of land through late Shri Pratap Gambhir. The appellant has also accepted this fact in the submission filed during the appeal proceedings. Therefore, these investments are covered by the provisions of section 69 B of the I.T. Act 20.3 Further, it is evident that the investments have been made over the years. Thus, the appellant has made cash investment from financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20. It is evident from the excel sheet that no date is mentioned on this excel sheet, which indicates that till the date of search, the cumulative cash invested from for three years is of Rs. 1,04,04,500. Therefore, to determine the cash investments made in various years, there is no option but to apportion the cash in various years on the basis of the amount of cheque payments made in such years. 21. Now coming to the appellant's contention regarding telescoping of unaccounted cash taxed as capital gains in case of The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd.The appellant has contended that during the search and post- search investigation, it was revealed that the only source of cash earned by the group concerns is from the release of rights in Eksali land held by M/s The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. Shri Tarun Kumar Seksaria has already admitted in the statement recorded during the search that the same cash has been applied

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 8 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

for investments in various lands purchased by the group concerns. It is further submitted that the unaccounted cash generated has been taxed as capital gains in the hands of Estate Investment Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the addition of the same will lead to double addition in the appellant's hands. Hence, telescoping of the amount added in the hands of Estate Investment Pvt. Ltd. is to be allowed. 22. As already discussed above, during the search on the group concerns of the appellant, 3 diaries and 8 loose diaries were found from the office premises. These diaries were written and maintained by Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, cashier of the group concerns. From the notings written in the diary and from the statements recorded during the search in the case of Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Shri Kamal Bubna, Shri Tarun Kumar Seksaria and Shri Nand Kumar Seksaria, it was established that the notings in the diary contain unaccounted cash receipts and cash expenditure. It was further unearthed that the only source of unaccounted cash receipt is in lieu of the release of rights in Eksali land at Mira- Bhayander and other places. This cash has been utilized for making investments in various lands purchased by the group concern through the land aggregator Late Shri Pratap Gambhir. During the search, an excel sheet was also found from the desktop computer of Shri Tarun Kumar Seksaria. As already discussed above, this excel sheet contains notings of payment of cheques as well as cash for purchasing various land at village Dhokawade. In the statement recorded, Shri Tarun Kumar Seksaria has also admitted the fact that the amounts written in column B of this excel sheet are the cash payments made by the appellant for the purchase of land. 23. Thus, it is a fact that the only source of cash receipts by the group concerns is from the release of rights in Eksali land held by the Estate Investment Company and this unaccounted cash has been utilized for making investments in various lands purchased by the group concern through the land aggregator Late Shri Pratap Gambhir. The notings in the diaries and notings in the excel sheet corroborate with the statements. It is also a fact that in the assessment orders passed in the case of the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., the unaccounted cash received in lieu of rights in Eksali land has been treated as unaccounted capital gains. In the appeal orders in the case of Estate Investment Pvt. Ltd., I have confirmed these additions. Thus, the source of investment in the land has been taxed in the hands of the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. As the same cash has been applied for investment in land, the telescoping of the amount taxed in the hands of the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. needs to be allowed to the appellant. The AO has not given any specific reason for not allowing the telescoping benefit to the appellant. The AO rejected the contention only on the ground that the appellant has contended that no cash has been paid for investment. Therefore, telescoping to the extent of the amount added in the hands of Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. is allowed. Accordingly, the addition made of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted. Appeal on these grounds is thus ALLOWED.”

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 9 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 10 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

cheque payments and made additions accordingly, detail of whichis as under-

AY Amount (Rs.)

2016-2017 35,00,000

2017-2018 61,04,500

2020-2021 8,00,000

6.1 Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to Para No.50.1 for ready reference said finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“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 ld. 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 by PDG in his

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 11 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

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 assessee. 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 loose 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

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 12 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 13 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

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. 53. Having disposed of the additions of merits, we now turn to legal ground concerning the validity of the assessment 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 principal plank, that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing 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; On the issue of issue of notice by Jurisdiction Assessing Officer , 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 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

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 14 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

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. 53.1. 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. 53.2. 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. 54. Having held so, it necessarily follows that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in violation of the Faceless Scheme under section 151A stand vitiated in law. The notice under section 148, having been issued by an officer not authorised under the notified scheme, is coram non judice. This conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753 of 2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, both for want of jurisdiction and for breach of mandatory procedural require.

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 15 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

54.1. 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 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. 55. In the result, and in consonance with our detailed findings hereinbefore, we hold that (i) the additions made under section 69A/69B on account of alleged cash investment in Dapoli and Dhokawade land stand deleted for want of evidence; (ii) the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The remaining grounds pertaining to interest under sections 234B are purely consequential and call for no separate adjudication. The appeals filed by the assessees are thus allowed in part, whereas those preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed.” 6.2 We find that the addition of ₹8,00,000/- made in the year under consideration represents the assessee's alleged proportionate cash investment towards acquisition of land at Dapoli. The very same seized material, namely, the excel sheet, loose papers and the statements recorded during the course of search under section 132(4) of the Act, constituted the foundation of the additions made in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

6.3 The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after an elaborate examination of the entire evidentiary record, the statements recorded during the search, the subsequent retractions, and the absence of any independent corroborative material, has

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 16 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

categorically held that the additions based solely upon the unverified excel sheets, loose papers and uncorroborated statements are legally unsustainable. The Tribunal further held that the Assessing Officer failed to undertake any independent enquiry to verify the seized material or to examine the effect of the retracted statements and, consequently, the additions lacked the requisite evidentiary foundation. Those findings have been rendered after a detailed appreciation of the very material on which the impugned addition is founded.

6.4 The Revenue has not brought to our notice any distinguishing feature in the factual matrix of the present assessment year, nor has it pointed out any subsequent judicial pronouncement of a superior forum taking a contrary view. In the absence of any distinguishing circumstance, judicial discipline demands that a Coordinate Bench follow the earlier decision rendered on identical facts. Consistency in judicial decision-making is an indispensable facet of the rule of law and certainty in tax administration.

6.5 The learned Departmental Representative, however, contended that the Coordinate Bench ought to have restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer instead of deleting the addition, since the alleged infirmity was only procedural in nature and the Assessing Officer could have been afforded an opportunity to examine the retracted statements afresh.

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 17 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

6.6 We are unable to accede to the aforesaid submission. The Coordinate Bench, after analysing the entire evidentiary record, has recorded a categorical finding that the additions were founded exclusively upon uncorroborated excel sheets, loose papers and statements which stood subsequently retracted, and that no independent investigation or corroborative evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer despite ample opportunity available during the assessment proceedings. The deletion of the additions was, therefore, not founded merely upon any procedural irregularity but upon a substantive failure of the Revenue to establish the additions by legally admissible and reliable evidence.

6.7 Since the impugned addition for the year under consideration emanates from the very same search material and identical line of reasoning which already stands examined and rejected by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, and no distinguishing feature has been demonstrated before us, we respectfully follow the said decision. Consequently, the order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the addition of ₹8,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69A/69B of the Act is directed to be deleted. In view of our decision on the merits of the addition, the remaining grounds, being either legal or consequential in nature, do not survive for separate adjudication.

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, 18 ITA No. 3214/MUM/2025

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai