POPATLAL PURAJI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 8517/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 2. ITA No. 8518/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Popatlal Puraji Jain CIT(A)-52/DCIT 4(2), Shop No. 12, Ganesh Room No. 419, Bhuvan Bldg, 357, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Lamington Road, Grant Bandra Kurla Road SO, Mumbai- Complex, Mumbai- 400 007 400 051 PAN/GIR No. ADDPJ5955D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri R. A. Dhyani, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 28.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"]under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as

2 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain "the Act"] dated 11.10.2025 for A.Ys. 2019–20 and 2020–21, arising out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act dated 06.03.2024 and 17.03.2024 respectively. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, the same are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is an individual, filed the return of income of the respective years. Subsequently, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, was carried out on 17.03.2021 in the case of Rubberwala Group and others. Consequent to the search proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated. Notices under section 153C were issued on 28.03.2023 and served upon the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed returns of income declaring the same income as originally returned. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search in the case of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), its promoter Shri Tabrez Shaikh and key employee Shri Imran Ansari were covered. Statements of these persons were recorded on oath. Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling the sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project, explained that the total sale consideration of shops comprised both cash and banking components and that such details were maintained

3 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain in excel sheets. It was further stated that pricing decisions were communicated by the promoter Shri Tabrez Shaikh and that the details relating to the sale of shops were recorded and maintained by him. 4. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a pen drive was found and seized, which contained data relating to sale of shops in Platinum Mall in the form of excel sheets titled “consolidated 1 2 3 balance” comprising various sheets such as “Master”, “Payment” and “Cheque”. The “Master” sheet contained detailed information including name of buyer, agreement value, cash received, cheque received and outstanding balances. Shri Imran Ansari admitted that the said data was maintained by him and related to the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. He further stated that the cash component received from buyers was handed over to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who in turn passed it to Shri Tabrez Shaikh. 5. Based on the analysis of the seized data and statements recorded, the Assessing Officer observed that the name of the assessee appeared in the excel sheets along with details of alleged cash payments made for purchase of shops in the Platinum Mall project. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased a shop in Platinum Mall Building, Girgaon, Mumbai for total consideration of Rs. 17,46,844/- and that part of such consideration was paid in cash.

4 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain 6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain why the amounts reflected as cash component should not be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. In response, the assessee denied having made any cash payment and contended that the addition was based merely on third-party statements and uncorroborated data. It was submitted that no direct evidence such as cash withdrawal, receipt or any documentary proof was found and that the seized material did not belong to the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee. It was observed that the seized excel sheets contained specific entries relating to the assessee and that the same stood corroborated by statements recorded under section 132(4) of Shri Imran Ansari as well as by the statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh, who admitted receipt of on-money. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had made unaccounted cash payments for purchase of shop and that the same constituted unexplained investment not recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, additions were made under section 69 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the assessment under section 153C was without jurisdiction, that the addition was based solely on third-party

5 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain statements and excel sheets seized from a third party, that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided, that the seized material did not belong to the assessee and that there was no corroborative evidence to establish the alleged cash payment. It was further contended that the addition under section 69 was not sustainable in law. 9. The CIT(A) noted that notices of hearing were issued through ITBA system fixing various dates. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and it was inferred that the assessee had nothing adverse to represent. The appeals were decided on the basis of material available on record and written submissions filed. 10. The CIT(A), after considering the facts and material on record, observed that during the course of search, electronic data in the form of excel sheets was seized from Shri Imran Ansari, which contained details of sale of shops including cash component. It was further observed that the assessee’s name was specifically mentioned in the excel sheet along with details of transaction and that the same was corroborated by statements recorded under section 132(4) as well as by the statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh. The CIT(A) held that the evidences were not mere loose papers but authenticated digital records supported by statements and disclosures of the developer group. 11. The CIT(A) further held that adequate opportunity was provided during assessment proceedings and that cross-

6 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

examination is not an absolute right in all circumstances. It was also held that provisions of section 69 were applicable where the investment was not recorded in the books and the assessee failed to offer satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of such investment. Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both the years.

7 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

by him during the assessment proceedings which is against the principles of natural justice and hence the said order is liable to be quashed c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in not providing opportunity to cross examine person whose statement had been relied upon which is against the Natural Principal of justice. d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO merely on suspicion but Mere suspicion cannot take the place of evidence e) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO without providing the approval taken by the Ld. AO of the competent Authority. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order under Section 153C passed by the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) who has passed a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, which is not in accordance with the law. In absence of separate satisfaction notes the proceedings should have been declared Void ab Initio as held by the ITAT Nagpur bench in the case of Maheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(1) wherein During search and seizure conducted at premises of one Rubberwala group, some documents were seized which were alleged to be pertaining to assessee-company - Accordingly, search assessment made under section 153C was made against assessee - It was noted that Assessing Officer of searched person had recorded consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years and subsequently Assessing Officer of assessee, non-searched party had further recorded consolidated satisfaction note for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 - Whether satisfaction note was required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year - Held, yes - Whether since there was no co- relation with documents year-wise to clearly point out as to how documents pertained to assessee, in absence of required satisfaction note for each year separately, entire assessment under section 153C would be vitiated - Held, yes [Para 33] [In favour of assessee].

8 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

9 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

Assessment Year Amount of Cash Payment (Rs.) 2019–20 Rs. 5,00,000/- 2020–21 Rs. 12,46,844/- Total Rs. 17,46,844/-

10 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain out of the same search action. The Ld. AR placed reliance on various decision including the following decisions of the co- ordinate benches, wherein on identical facts arising out of the search in the case of Rubberwala Group, additions made under section 69/69A of the Act on the basis of third-party digital material were deleted: i. Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT – ITA Nos. 4747 & 4746/Mum/2025 ii. Mr. Mishra Ganesha Ram v. DCIT – ITA Nos. 5556 & 5552/Mum/2025 16. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and submitted that the additions have been rightly made and confirmed based on the material found during the course of search and the statements recorded. It was contended that the seized digital data and statements constitute valid evidence and the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that the orders of the lower authorities deserve to be upheld. 17. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and carefully considered the material placed on record including the written submissions and judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee. 18. At the outset, the controversy involved in the present appeals lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the addition

11 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain made under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged cash component in purchase of immovable property can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital material, namely excel sheets seized during search and statements recorded under section 132(4), in absence of any independent corroborative evidence and without affording opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 19. From the assessment records, it is evident that the entire edifice of the addition rests upon an excel sheet allegedly maintained by Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, seized from his possession; and statements recorded during search proceedings indicating that certain transactions involved cash component. No other material has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee has, in fact, made any cash payment over and above the recorded consideration. There is no evidence in the form of cash withdrawal, receipt, confirmation, diary or any independent documentary material evidencing payment of cash by the assessee. It is also an admitted position that the said excel sheet was neither recovered from the possession of the assessee nor bears any signature or acknowledgment of the assessee. Further, the assessee has consistently denied having made any cash payment and has furnished documentary evidence demonstrating that the entire consideration has been paid through banking channels.

12 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain 20. It is observed that the addition has been made primarily on the basis of statements of third parties, particularly Shri Imran Ansari, without affording the assessee any opportunity of cross- examination, despite specific objection raised before the lower authorities. It is a settled legal position that where reliance is placed on third-party statements, denial of cross-examination vitiates the addition. Further, the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on entries contained in an excel sheet recovered from a third party. Such uncorroborated digital material, in absence of proper authentication and independent evidence, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the assessee. We also note that identical issues arising from the same search in the case of Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided by co-ordinate benches in favour of the assessee. 21. In this regard, we find that identical issue has been considered by the co-ordinate benches in cases arising out of the very same search action in the case of Rubberwala Group. 22. In case of Arvind Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT – ITA Nos. 4747 & 4746/Mum/2025, the Co-ordinate Bench held that the addition based solely on an excel sheet seized from a third party and statements recorded during search, without any corroborative evidence such as cash receipts, diary or independent material linking the assessee, is unsustainable. It was further held that denial of cross-examination of the person whose statement formed the basis of the addition violates

13 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

principles of natural justice. The Bench also observed that digital material like excel sheets does not have independent evidentiary value unless duly corroborated, and admission by the developer cannot fasten liability on the assessee in absence of proof of actual payment.

14 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

any receipt of cash payment issued by the assessee etc was found from the possession of the searched person. In our opinion, mere entries in a third-party excel sheet cannot, by themselves, constitute substantive evidence unless duly corroborated, authenticated, and linked to the assessee by independent and cogent material. No corroborative evidence of actual cash payment by the assessee exists. Neither the pen drive nor the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh were supplied to the assessee. The CIT(A)'s approach of merely restricting the addition to 1/3rd does not cure the fundamental infirmity of absence of legally admissible evidence against the assessee. It is trite law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Third-party admissions, untested and uncorroborated, cannot form the sole basis of an addition under section 69. The Revenue has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to bring on record credible, independent, and cogent material establishing that the assessee made any payment in cash over and above the recorded consideration. The coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of assessee Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (supra) held that :- "8. We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessment was completed u/s 153C on account of the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search action, premises of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), its promoter and director-Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling sale & registration of shops in "Platinum Mall" project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during the course of search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the respective buyers of the shops. However, on the other hand, the assessee denied payment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pendrive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was found, which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Rajesh Jain on Identical issue but

15 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

misplace its reliance. After having gone through the basic facts of Rajesh Jain case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is reproduced as under: 5.1. On 17.03.2021, the residential premise of the assessee was also covered by way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Search action was also initiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021. In such action along with premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubberwala group entities, residences of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and Shri Imran Ansari a key employee of Rubberwala group handling sale & registration of shops in "Platinum Mall" project of RHIL were covered under section 132 of the Act. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as well as post search proceedings. 5.2. During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Agripada, Mumbai Central 400011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari was covered under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter-alia handling sale and registration of the shops in "Platinum Mall" Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). 5.3. Shri Imran Ansari in his response to question no. 13 & 14 of the said statement explained the complete procedure of the of the sale of shops in the "Platinum Mall" project. While explaining further about the price structure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in response to Q. no. 15 categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group). On probing further, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 16, stated that these prices, as

16 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, are.. communicated to him orally. He also revealed in response to Q. no. 17 of. the said statement that data related to shops is maintained by him in excel sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved from his possession. The sald pen drive is accepted by Shri Imran Ansari belonging to him and he also accepted that this pen drive is containing data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explained that this data is prepared by him. Shri Imran Ansari's this acceptance also corroborates with the fact that the said data was retrieved from the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwala Group. 5.4. It was ascertained that the data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in an excel file namely "consolidated 1 2 3 balance". In the said file sheets with different name viz "Master", "Payment" and "Cheque" etc. are found to be maintained. It is also found out that in respect of the sale of shops in the said project, comprehensive data is being maintained in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet "Master" is so elaborate that the data in the said sheet is spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns of "Master" sheet and such explanation of each and every column by Shri Imran Ansari further support the fact that the he was maintaining the said data and therefore could explain all these columns with relevance and purpose. Shri Imran Ansari in response to Question no. 22, 23 and 24, has explained in detail the meaning and relevant of each and every column. In column B, against the name of 'Raj Bhai Jain'/'Raj BhaiJain(I.S)', total 27 shops have been entered. Further, these 27 shops are stated (by Shri Imran Ansari) to be booked by the assessee only. Also, ShriTabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement during post search proceedings on 19.08.2021 categorically confirmed the admission made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confirmed the data of the said excel to be true byconfirming facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari in his statement. It is also important to note

17 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

here that the phone number mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh Jain. 5.5. Regarding the frequency of updating the said excel file/sheet, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is updated on the same day when a payment is received either in cash or cheque (or banking channel). The column A to AR of the sheet "Master" are stated to be updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the said excel file are also stated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in the above response that he takes the parties to ShriAbrar Ahmed (who during the search established to be a person handing cash for the Rubberwala Group). ShriAbrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari who update the diariesand the said excel file. Such detailed mechanism in place further upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari on oath. It is also important to note here that Shri Imran Ansari also used to call and follow up with the buyers on the numbers saved in his data. As aforementioned, the number, for the shops for which the assessee has paid the cash component, is mentioned as 9892196071, which is the assessee's own number. Thus, It makes clear that for the cash payment part, for all the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari used to follow up with Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only................... 10. We also noticed that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 38428 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 and 3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is reproduced herein below: 12. The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020-21 is with regard to the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash payments relating to the shops purchased by others cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The decision rendered by us in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 on an identical issue on merits in the earlier paragraphs would apply in this year also. Following the same, we affirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 13. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash payment of Rs.18,64,200/- in respect of purchase of shop

18 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search conducted in their hands, incriminating documents containing details of cash collected on sale of various shops were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. However, the assessee denied payment of cash. However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the case of Rubberwala group and accordingly made addition of Rs.18,64,200/-In AY 2020-21. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The Id A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the same. The AO also did not provide the opportunity of cross examination despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on various case laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. 16. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs.18,64,200/- cannot be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbal Tribunal In the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs.

19 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under:- 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO had placed reliance upon. The Hon"ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that the above said decision of Hon"ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the present case. 11. From the above we find that the Coordinate bench has consider the same facts and rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and since the facts of the present case are also identical with the facts of Rajesh Jain's (supra) case, therefore the said decision will be application on the facts of the present case as well. Moreover, the assessee categorically denied having paid any amount in cash over and above the agreement value. The AO has neither confronted assessee with any of the material found during the search on Rubberwala group and even no evidence or seized document has been referred to where any name of the assessee has been explicitly mentioned on account of paying any 'on-money'. 12. Although it has been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material/documents /pendrive was confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was confronted. 13. Therefore, in our view, the information if any found in the pendrive etc., cannot be considered as 'credible evidence', unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Since the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, if any, based on which notice u/s153 of the Act, was issued, in our view, it hampers the primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice.

20 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

21 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross-examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him Indicating payment of on-money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page-53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of 42 lakh made on account of on-money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima-facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross- examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic

22 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. 11. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on-money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the Information contained in the pen drive, It is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on-money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on-money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on-money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry/investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on-money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material on record to prove the payment of on-money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on-money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the

23 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under:- 15. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Monika Anand Gupta Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5561/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12)whereas coordinate bench held as under. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find that the addition for on-money payment has been done in this case without any corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based upon some statement of the builder. Such additions are not sustainable on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs P.V Kalyana sundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collected by revenue at the builder's office is compliant with the requirement of section 65B of Evidence Act regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be deleted. 16. In the case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, ITA No.1553/M/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12, wherein the coordinate bench has held as under: 9. Since the sole issue raised in this appeal is covered by the order (supra) passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal addition made in this case is not sustainable. Because the addition is made merely on the basis of statement made by one Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the promoters of Cosmos Group under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroboration. Moreover, statement or any material seized during the course of search under section 132(4) of the Act can only be used against Mr. Suraj Parmar of Cosmos Group and not against the assessee without any corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from the office of builders is also not admissible being not proved under section 65 of the Evidence Act. So in view of the matter, addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

24 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

25 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents whose statements were relied upon by him. Despite the request seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponents and furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose material, these were denied to him. 22. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed by us above, we direct the AO to delete the addition, consequently these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the absence of confrontation, lack of cross-examination, absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee, and respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and the ground no. 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are allowed on merits. In view of the fact that the addition has already been deleted on merits, therefore all other grounds rendered academic and require no adjudication. 24. On careful consideration of the facts of the present case in light of the above judicial precedents, we find that the addition is based solely on third-party excel sheet and statements. No corroborative evidence of actual cash payment has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. No material evidencing cash trail or receipt exists and the assessee has furnished documentary evidence showing payment through banking channels. Also, the opportunity of cross-examination has not been granted. The facts of the present case are thus identical to the cases decided by the co-ordinate benches, wherein such additions have been consistently deleted.

26 ITA No. 8517 & 8518/Mum/2025 Popatlal Puraji Jain

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 18/05/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai