CHATRABHUJ NARANDAS VITHLANI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

आदेश / ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned three appeals filed by the different assessees, pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2019-20 and 2020-21, are directed against the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], by the National Faceless Appeal

ITA No 113/RJT/2026 & 834 & 825/RJT/2025 Chatrabhujbhai N. Vithlani & Sharad Ch. Vithlani Center, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC’], which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as ‘AO”] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

Page 2 of 6

ITA No 113/RJT/2026 & 834 & 825/RJT/2025 Chatrabhujbhai N. Vithlani & Sharad Ch. Vithlani making the addition, has neither been found from the possession of the assessee nor does it contain any signature/approval of the assessee. It has been found from the possession of a different third party. Hence, such data/material cannot be directly thrust upon the assessee, more particularly, when there is no other independent/corroborating evidence in support of the veracity of its content and also when no cross-examination is allowed. In respect of the unsigned Excel Sheet found from the possession of a third party, ld.Counsel relied upon a direct judgment of Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (Judgment dated 06.03.2024 in Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024) wherein the Hon'ble Court disapproved the reliance placed on unsigned Excel Sheet by the assessing officer and affirmed the deletion of the addition by the Tribunal (ITAT). Following the above judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the Hon'ble Rajkot Tribunal (ITAT) in case of M/s. RC Heights Pvt Ltd. (ITA No. 3 & 4 / Rjt/2025), on similar facts, relying on the above Gujarat High Court decision, has deleted the addition. Therefore, ld. Counsel contended that addition made by the assessing officer may be deleted.

Page 3 of 6

ITA No 113/RJT/2026 & 834 & 825/RJT/2025 Chatrabhujbhai N. Vithlani & Sharad Ch. Vithlani High Court of Gujarat, in the case of PCIT v. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia, (supra).In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “20. We note that apart from excel sheet, no evidence has been found to suggest that the assessee had actually received the said amount. In the absence of any documentary evidence to suggest the same, it could not be presumed that the amounts reflected in the excel sheet were the income of the assessee, received from RK Group. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to suggest that RK Group has admitted that the amounts were paid to the assessee- company. Hence, simply rough noting on the excel file, which is not signed by any party, does not mean that the addition could be made in the hands of the assessee- company. Since no evidence was found relating to the existence of any transaction between the assessee- company and R K Group and in the absence of any corroborative evidence to suggest that the assessee- company had actually received the said amount, no addition could be made merely on the basis of noting excel file found during the search proceedings from third party. 21. We find that no tangible documents, any loose papers found during the courses of search, which contains the signature of the assessee as well as authorized partner of M/s Titanium Buildcon LLP. In Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (HUF) Vs. ACIT (1999) 63 TT) (Ahm) 790-where papers were not seized from house of the assessee nor was in his handwriting, of the assessee, the inference of on-money receipt based on such paper was not justified. Additions based on loose papers without corroborative evidence, it was held, by Tribunal, to be not sustainable. Neither evidence to link the seized documents found in the premises of third party, that is, R K Group during the course of search, then the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act not applicable. The action of the Assessing Officer in making addition based on the searched person`s excel -sheet data, recording of third party, that the same belongs to the assessee, is incorrect, as the same would be clearly impermissible, as the seized data, admittedly, had no nexus with the assessee and there is no signature of assessee or third-party, on such excel sheet. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the entries in the books of third persons. Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that such addition could not be made only on the basis of the notings in the books of third persons. The entire addition revolving to the excel sheet found and seized from the third- party which is "dump documents" which has no legality in the eyes of the law and the addition exclusively based on such documents needs to be deleted. 22. We note that assessee’s issue under consideration is also covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 order dated 06.03.2024, while passing the order the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has made the following observations: “1. Having noted the findings of the facts returned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CITA', in brief) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT', herein after), we may record that, essentially, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'IT Act of 1961') were initiated against the Respondent- assessee on the basis of an excel sheet found from the computer of a person, associated with the Company, namely Navratna

Page 4 of 6

ITA No 113/RJT/2026 & 834 & 825/RJT/2025 Chatrabhujbhai N. Vithlani & Sharad Ch. Vithlani Organizers and Developers Private Limited (in short as "the Developer'), in the premises of whom the search was conducted. 2. The excel sheet, according to the learned Counsel for the Revenue, contained the details of payment made by the assessee to the developer, with respect to which tax had been paid by the developer before the Settlement Commissioner. The findings returned by the CITA and ITAT on the issue is sought to be assailed on the ground that the payment of tax by the developer, in whose premises search was conducted, before the Settlement Commissioner, with respect to the amount entered in the excel sheet found from the possession of the assistant working with the developer, is sufficient proof of the transaction between the assessee and the developer. 3. We find Inherent fallacy in this submission, inasmuch as, there is no basis for conducting proceedings against the assessee merely for the fact that the developer had paid tax on the amount shown in the excel-sheet There is no adjudication with regard to the payment, which was shown in the excel-sheet to the effect that the same was actually paid by the assessee to the developer. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings written by the CITA and ITAT are that the document found from the premises of the third party namely excel-sheet, which is the basis the proceedings was without any signature and there is no corroborative material to substantia the said document. The nature of the document has not been explained by the Assessing Officer while proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not successfully demolish the facts, which ai recorded concurrently by the CITA and ITAT. 5. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises to entertain this appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed.

Page 5 of 6

ITA No 113/RJT/2026 & 834 & 825/RJT/2025 Chatrabhujbhai N. Vithlani & Sharad Ch. Vithlani findings of the Coordinate Bench (supra) and judgement of jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the binding judgments of the Coordinate Bench(supra) and judgement of jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat (supra), I allow these three appeals of different assessees.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 12/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 12/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  Guard File /True copy/ By order //True Copy//

Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 6 of 6