MR. ANIL KUMAR NUNNA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.5496/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Flat No.207, Tower A Metro Kalyan Residency, Near Metro Junction Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Vs. Mall Netivli, Kalyan, District West, District Thane-421306 Thane-421306 PAN: AAZPN6052E Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue -��थ�/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Shriram Bajaj, CA : Shri Tushar Mohite – SR. DR. Revenue by : 30.03.2026 Date of Hearing : 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is instituted by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 17.06.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2019-20, arises from assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 11.01.2024, passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. The following grounds are as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned C.I.T.

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna (A) erred in confirming the action of AO of initiating reassessment proceedings in the appellant's case- (a) based on issue of notice u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as against issuing it in the faceless manner in accordance with provisions of section 151Aand; (b) non-mentioning of the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the approval dated 30.03.2023 granted under section 151 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane, in contravention of circular no. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August, 2019, hence, same is invalid Your appellant, therefore, prays that initiation of reassessment proceedings be held invalid and resultant reassessment order passed be quashed. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming the action of AO of initiating reassessment proceedings in the appellant's case based on issue of notice u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is not fulfilling the mandate of the applicable reassessment provisions of the Act. Your appellant therefore, prays that initiation of reassessment proceedings be held invalid and resultant reassessment order paased be quashed. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Id. C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 44,00,000/- under the provisions of the Act, ignoring the submissions made by your appellant before lower authorities. Your appellant, therefore, prays that said addition be deleted.” 2. It is notice that there is a minor delay of 2 days in filing of the present appeal. Which has been explained to be on account of preparation of documents, which took some time due to assessees non awareness about the tax matters and non-techno savviness. We condone the delay, in the interest justice, being not for exorbitant period of time. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who had filed his return of income on 27.09.2019, for assessment year 2019-20 declaring total taxable income of Rs.5,08,230/-. The AO had received the information that the assessee had paid Rs.44,00,000/- as “on money” in lieu of purchase of units in the project of ‘GNP Infracon’, but the same was not disclosed in the return of income filed by him. The case was reopened u/s 148 and accordingly the notice 2

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna u/s 148 was served to the assessee on 30.03.2022. The AO after hearing the assessee on the issue, had completed the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on 11.01.2024 by making an addition towards unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings before him had dismissed the legal challenges by the assessee regarding validity of notice u/s 148 on the aspect of limitation. Further, while dealing with the merits of the issue, Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per information in the form of excel sheet surfaced from the office of the builder, which is further substantiated as per the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of Shri Kapil Talreja, Accounts Manager of ‘GNP Group’, who had accepted that the amounts mentioned in column ‘N’ of the excel sheet are cash receipt and they are not forming the part of amount agreed in the sale deeds. Ld. CIT(A) discussed the facts coming out from the multiple columns coded with the narration ‘T’, ‘S’, ‘N’ etc., considered the statements of Shri Kapil Talreja of ‘GNP Group’ and had concluded that the assessee has paid ‘On Money’ to the ‘GNP Arcadia’ for purchase of shop, but has failed to explain the source and genuineness of the transaction. In absence of any details furnished by the assessee, substantiating documentary evidence regarding the payment by way of ‘On Money’ amounting to Rs.44,00,000/-, the addition made by Ld. AO u/s 69 has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of assessee stands dismissed. 3

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before us. 6. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee raised an issue regarding validity of notice u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It is submitted that according to the provisions of Sub-Clause (iv) of Explanation 2to Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was under obligation to record satisfaction with prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that books of accounts or documents, seized or requisitioned u/s 132 or section 132A in case of any other person on or after first day of April pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein relate to the assessee. It was the submission that the satisfaction was not recorded in the present case, therefore, the notice u/s 148 vitiates and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. In rebuttal to such contention of the assessee, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue submitted a report from the AO stating that a proposal has been submitted with necessary information to the Ld. PCIT and accordingly necessary approval/sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act has been obtained from Ld. PCIT-1, Thane on 30.03.2023, after. Therefore, once the approval is granted it cannot be said that the satisfaction was not recorded. Further, it is submitted that since the case is relevant to search and seizure, reopening of assessment can only be done by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and subsequently the case was transferred to the faceless manner in accordance with the provisions of section 151A of the Act. Therefore, the mandate of law as stipulated in the relevant 4

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna provisions had been adhered to by the ld. AO and for such reasonsthe notice u/s 148 cannot be invalidated. 8. We have considered the aforesaid issue and found that the notice u/s 148 was issued only after approval by the competent authority. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the notice was issued without complying with the relevant provisions of law. The legal ground raised by the Ld. AR therefore stands rejected. Regarding issuance of notice by JAO/FAO or mentioning of DIN (Document Identification Number) on the approval u/s 151, Ld. AR conceded to not press the same and, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 9. Coming to merits of the case, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the information has been revealed during the search action on ‘GNP Infracon’ regarding ‘On Money’ paid by various buyers of the properties in the project ‘GNP Arcadia’. The excel sheet dated 11.04.2019, which is relied upon by the revenue, name of assessee is also reflecting at shop no. G-8 having mention of an amount of Rs.44,00,000/- in column ‘N’ of the said excel sheet. Statements of the authorized persons of ‘GNP Group’, Shri Kapil Talreja was recorded, according to which ‘N” means part of consideration, which is to be received in cash. On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that the addition was made based on information surfaced during the year search and seizure u/s 132 on a third party. The assessee was not provided with cross-examination, which though was not requested before the AO but a ground was raised before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted that the assessee denied to have made any such payments in cash to the builder for 5

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna acquisition of shop and also there is no proof that any cash has been paid by the assessee to the builder. It is also contended that the excel sheet found was dated 11.04.2019, whereas the addition has been made in assessment year 2020-21. Therefore, the addition made, is found to be not with any substantial evidence against the assessee, neither the assessee had conceded to have made any such payment. Ld. AR placed his reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Veena Hiralal Mehta vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No.5492 & 5493/M/2025,wherein under identical circumstances, the addition made on account of ‘On Money’ u/s 69 of the Act has been deleted by the Tribunal in absence of any incriminating material found from the assessee or found directly connected with the assessee. In view of aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer that the addition made on account of ‘On Money’ u/s 69 in the impugned order is liable to be deleted. 10. Per contra, Ld. DR representing the revenue submitted that the information in the form of excel sheet has been impounded from the premises of the builder from whom the assessee had acquired a shop no.G-8 in the project ‘GNP Arcadia’. This fact has been further fortified by the key person of the ‘GNP Group’. Therefore, there is no doubt that the assessee had made the payment of cash amounting to Rs.44,00,000/- over and above the declared consideration. Accordingly, the addition was rightly made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and decisions relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case,which is at parity in terms of facts and circumstances, as was in the cases referred to by the assessee, the addition cannot be sustained as the assessee was not provided with an opportunity to confront or cross-examine the witness whose statements were relied upon and the consideration of the property has been valued by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. The identical issue which is relied by the assessee has been dealt with in the case of Veena Hiralal Mehta (supra) wherein the relevant findings of ITAT are as under: “29. We reiterate that the identical addition has elaborately been dealt with by the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases referred to above, which is otherwise unsustainable on the aforesaid analyzation made by us independently specific to the effect that no incriminating material directly connected with the assessee, such as cash voucher, receipt, ledger or any document signed by the Assessee, was ever found during the search or post-search proceedings, either from the Rubberwala Group or Мг. Ansari, whose statement has been made the foundation for making the addition, and thus in that eventuality, the onus shifts upon the Revenue Department to substantiate/corroborate the evidence collected during the search proceedings and to offer an opportunity for confrontation or cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon, while making the addition. The AO though provided the relevant material collected during the search proceedings but in the Assessment order nowhere mentioned such material/documents, except as referred to above such as pen derive, excel sheet and statement of Mr. Ansari etc.. The AO also failed to substantiate the evidence collected and give any opportunity of cross examinations of the witnesses, whose statements were relied on and/or made a foundation for making the addition without considering peculiar fact that the Assessee otherwise has purchased the Shop/property under consideration on a consideration/value, which is otherwise more than the stamp duty value, as determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Further, the Assessing Officer also failed to brought on record any comparable case in the same shopping mall, so as to ascertain the actual rate of transactions made. Thus, in cumulative effects, the addition under consideration is deleted by allowing the appeal i.e. ITA No. 5492/M/2025 filed by the assessee.”

ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Nunna pointed out by the revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the ld. AO vide order dated 11.01.2024, which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order cannot sustain. We thus direct to delete the addition u/s 69 of the Act. 13. In result, ITA No. 5496/Mum/2025 of the assessee stands allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 14-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated :14-05-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai