MALDUNGE RETREAT & FARMING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5120/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 September 2026AY 2020-2113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on an untested statement of a third party without adequate corroboration and independent inquiry. The seized material and statements did not sufficiently establish the nexus with the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on material seized during a search of related entities. An addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was made under Section 69A for alleged unaccounted money.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 69A was sustainable based on seized material and third-party statements without proper corroboration and opportunity for cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Adv, Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/09/2026

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.02.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21, raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 2 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

18.04.2023, which is illegal, bad in law, voi 18.04.2023, which is illegal, bad in law, void of jurisdiction and hence liable to be d of jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unaccounted money, without appreciating the facts and on account of alleged unaccounted money, without appreciating the facts and on account of alleged unaccounted money, without appreciating the facts and evidences on record. evidences on record. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- in absence of any incriminating material or cogent evidence on record in absence of any incriminating material or cogent evidence on record in absence of any incriminating material or cogent evidence on record to justify such addition. to justify such addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. ppeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- merely on the basis of statements/confessions of third parties. merely on the basis of statements/confessions of third parties. merely on the basis of statements/confessions of third parties. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rel Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying upon the retracted ying upon the retracted statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka for sustaining the addition of Rs. statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka for sustaining the addition of Rs. statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka for sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, without appreciating that such retracted statement has no , without appreciating that such retracted statement has no , without appreciating that such retracted statement has no evidentiary value in the absence of corroborative material. evidentiary value in the absence of corroborative material. 6. On the facts and in the 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition based Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition based Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and not on any tangible material or on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and not on any tangible material or on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and not on any tangible material or independent verification.” independent verificatio 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income income u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ( in short the Act) on tax Act,1961 ( in short the Act) on 14.02.2021, declaring loss at Rs. ( 14.02.2021, declaring loss at Rs. (-) 65,985/-. Subsequently, a . Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A of search and seizure action u/s 132 and survey action search and seizure action u/s 132 and survey action the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing of Income-tax the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing of Income the Act was carried out by the Investigation wing of Income Department on DB Realty Group, Dynamix Group and other related Department on DB Realty Group, Dynamix Group and other related Department on DB Realty Group, Dynamix Group and other related entities on 07.10.2021. During the course of the search conducted entities on 07.10.2021. During the course of the search conducted entities on 07.10.2021. During the course of the search conducted at the premises of the promoter of the said groups, Shri at the premises of the promoter of the said groups, at the premises of the promoter of the said groups, Jayvardhan Goenka Jayvardhan Goenka, various documents and digital material, , various documents and digital material, including data backups, were seized. The Assessing Officer noted including data backups, were seized. The Assessing Officer noted including data backups, were seized. The Assessing Officer noted

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 3 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

that certain material so seized contained references relating to the that certain material so seized contained references relating to the that certain material so seized contained references relating to the assessee.

3.

On the basis of such information, the Assess On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer recorded a ing Officer recorded a satisfaction note in terms of Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 of the satisfaction note in terms of Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 of the satisfaction note in terms of Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 of the Act, after obtaining the requisite approval of the Principal Act, after obtaining the requisite approval of the Principal Act, after obtaining the requisite approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-4), Mumbai. Thereafter, the 4), Mumbai. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuance 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148. In response thereto, the assessee filed of notice under section 148. In response thereto, the assessee filed of notice under section 148. In response thereto, the assessee filed its return of income on its return of income on 16.02.2023, again declaring a loss of , again declaring a loss of Rs.65,985/-. Notice under section 143(2) was thereafter issued, Notice under section 143(2) was thereafter issued, Notice under section 143(2) was thereafter issued, followed by notice under section 1 followed by notice under section 142(1) dated 22.02.2023 22.02.2023, together with a detailed questionnaire. with a detailed questionnaire.

4.

During the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer brought During the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer brought During the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer brought to the notice of the assessee that certain digital material found to the notice of the assessee that certain digital material found to the notice of the assessee that certain digital material found during the search conducted at the residential premises of Shri during the search conducted at the residential premises o during the search conducted at the residential premises o Jayvardhan Goenka at Flat No. 9, Carmichael Road, Mumbai. Jayvardhan Goenka at Flat No. 9, Carmichael Road, Mumbai Jayvardhan Goenka at Flat No. 9, Carmichael Road, Mumbai The material comprised WhatsApp communications between Shri The material comprised WhatsApp communications between Shri The material comprised WhatsApp communications between Shri Jayvardhan Goenka and Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri Jitendra Rathi, stated to be a key , stated to be a key person person person associated associated associated with with with Shri Shri Shri Goenka. Goenka. Goenka. The The The said said said WhatsApp WhatsApp WhatsApp communication formed part of the material considered in the ormed part of the material considered in the ormed part of the material considered in the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. . In the relevant WhatsApp communication dated 28.05.2019 28.05.2019, Shri 5. In the relevant WhatsApp communication dated Jitendra Rathi sent a message to Shri Jayvardhan Goenka at 22:07 Jitendra Rathi sent a message to Shri Jayvardhan Goenka at 22:07 Jitendra Rathi sent a message to Shri Jayvardhan Goenka at 22:07

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 4 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

hours stating, in coded lang hours stating, in coded language, “Sir 5kg mango given to Rajiv sir, “Sir 5kg mango given to Rajiv sir, Dunge matter”, to which Shri Jayvardhan Goenka , to which Shri Jayvardhan Goenka for Mal-Dunge matter” responded, “ok”. In response to Question No. 31 during his . In response to Question No. 31 during his . In response to Question No. 31 during his statement, Shri Jayvardhan Goenka stated that “5kg mangoes” statement, Shri Jayvardhan Goenka stated that “5kg mangoes” statement, Shri Jayvardhan Goenka stated that “5kg mangoes” referred to Rs.5 lakh Rs.5 lakh. When the said WhatsApp communication was . When the said WhatsApp communication was confronted to Shri Jitendra Rathi, he stated, in response to confronted to Shri Jitendra Rathi, he stated, in response to confronted to Shri Jitendra Rathi, he stated, in response to Question No. 26 of his statement under section 132(4), that the Question No. 26 of his statement under section 132(4), that the Question No. 26 of his statement under section 132(4), that the message related to the communication sent to “Jay sir” around message related to the communication sent to “Jay sir” around message related to the communication sent to “Jay sir” around 28.05.2019, informing him , informing him that Rs.5 lakh in cash had been given Rs.5 lakh in cash had been given to Shri Rajiv Agarwal to Shri Rajiv Agarwal, stated to be an ex-employee, in connection employee, in connection with approval-related work concerning land at related work concerning land at MalDunge, near MalDunge, near Khandala, held by M/s MalDunge Retreat and Farming Private M/s MalDunge Retreat and Farming Private M/s MalDunge Retreat and Farming Private Limited, stated to be a Dynamix , stated to be a Dynamix Group company.

6.

The Assessing Officer further noticed that on examination of the The Assessing Officer further noticed that on examination of the The Assessing Officer further noticed that on examination of the cash book of the assessee during the search and post- search cash book of the assessee during the search and post cash book of the assessee during the search and post proceedings, no such cash transaction had been found to be proceedings, no such cash transaction had been found to be proceedings, no such cash transaction had been found to be recorded. He accordingly called upon the assessee to explain why recorded. He accordingly called upon the assessee to recorded. He accordingly called upon the assessee to the alleged cash payment of Rs.5 lakh should not be treated as the alleged cash payment of should not be treated as unexplained money.

7.

The assessee, in response, submitted that the statements of The assessee, in response, submitted that the statements of Shri The assessee, in response, submitted that the statements of Jitendra Rathi and Shri Jayvardhan Goenka Jitendra Rathi and Shri Jayvardhan Goenka had been recorded had been recorded under mental pressure and stress under mental pressure and stress and that, at the relevant time, and that, at the relevant time, the persons concerned did not have access to the requisite books of the persons concerned did not have access to the requisite books of the persons concerned did not have access to the requisite books of account and supporting documents. It was further contended that account and supporting documents. It was further contended that account and supporting documents. It was further contended that

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 5 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Jayvardhan Goenka had neither accepted nor affirmed the Shri Jayvardhan Goenka had neither accepted nor affirmed the Shri Jayvardhan Goenka had neither accepted nor affirmed the statement of Shri Jitendra Rat statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi and had himself stated that he was hi and had himself stated that he was not aware of the MalDunge matter. The assessee also submitted not aware of the MalDunge matter. The assessee also submitted not aware of the MalDunge matter. The assessee also submitted that both the statements had subsequently been retracted and that that both the statements had subsequently been retracted and that that both the statements had subsequently been retracted and that no cash had been found during the search. no cash had been found during the search.

8.

The Assessing Officer, however, did not acce The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation. He pt the explanation. He regarded the retractions as general in nature and unsupported by regarded the retractions as general in nature and unsupported by regarded the retractions as general in nature and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence and relied upon the seized WhatsApp contemporaneous evidence and relied upon the seized WhatsApp contemporaneous evidence and relied upon the seized WhatsApp communication and the statements recorded on oath. He also communication and the statements recorded on oath. He also communication and the statements recorded on oath. He also referred to the role attributed to Shri Jitendra referred to the role attributed to Shri Jitendra Rathi and concluded Rathi and concluded that the material indicated payment of Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv that the material indicated payment of Agarwal in connection with the assessee's MalDunge project. On in connection with the assessee's MalDunge project. On in connection with the assessee's MalDunge project. On that basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was that basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was that basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was the beneficial owner of the unexplained mon the beneficial owner of the unexplained money and, in the ey and, in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, made an addition of Rs.5 lakh under section 69A Rs.5 lakh under section 69A 147 of the Act, made an addition of of the Act. The Assessing officer ssessing officer relied on various decisions cited in on various decisions cited in the assessment order including decision of the coordinate bench of the assessment order including decision of the coordinate bench of the assessment order including decision of the coordinate bench of the Mumbai in the case of Video Master 83 ITD 102, Hiralal Mangal the Mumbai in the case of Video Master 83 ITD 102, Hiralal Mangal the Mumbai in the case of Video Master 83 ITD 102, Hiralal Mangal Lal & Co. 96 ITD 113, Pullangdde Rubbar Produce Co. Ltd. v State Lal & Co. 96 ITD 113, Pullangdde Rubbar Produce Co. Ltd. v State Lal & Co. 96 ITD 113, Pullangdde Rubbar Produce Co. Ltd. v State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253 of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253 etc., Accordingly, in the assessment Accordingly, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.04.2023, the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.04.2023, the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.04.2023, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5 lakh treating the same as Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5 lakh treating the same as Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5 lakh treating the same as unexplained money, in terms of Section 69A of the Act. unexplained money, in terms of Section 69A of the Act. unexplained money, in terms of Section 69A of the Act.

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 6 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

9.

In appeal, the learned CIT( In appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition. According to the A) upheld the addition. According to the learned CIT(A), the addition was not founded merely upon the learned CIT(A), the addition was not founded merely upon the learned CIT(A), the addition was not founded merely upon the statements of third parties but upon the seized WhatsApp statements of third parties but upon the seized WhatsApp statements of third parties but upon the seized WhatsApp communications, which, in his view, constituted incriminating communications, which, in his view, constituted incriminating communications, which, in his view, constituted incriminating digital material and were corrobora digital material and were corroborated by the statements of Shri ted by the statements of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri Jitendra Rathi. The learned CIT(A) Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri Jitendra Rathi. The learned CIT(A) Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri Jitendra Rathi. The learned CIT(A) further held that the absence of physical cash during the search did further held that the absence of physical cash during the search did further held that the absence of physical cash during the search did not, by itself, negate the alleged cash transaction. He also rejected not, by itself, negate the alleged cash transaction. He also rejected not, by itself, negate the alleged cash transaction. He also rejected the assessee's plea regar the assessee's plea regarding retraction and non- -grant of cross- examination, holding that the addition was primarily founded upon examination, holding that the addition was primarily founded upon examination, holding that the addition was primarily founded upon the seized digital material. the seized digital material. The relevant finding on Ld. CIT(A) is relevant finding on Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:

“10.5 The appellant's first and principal contention is that 10.5 The appellant's first and principal contention is that there is "no 10.5 The appellant's first and principal contention is that incriminating material" and that the addition is based on assumptions. This incriminating material" and that the addition is based on assumptions. This incriminating material" and that the addition is based on assumptions. This contention is contrary to the record. The seized WhatsApp communications contention is contrary to the record. The seized WhatsApp communications contention is contrary to the record. The seized WhatsApp communications themselves constitute incriminating digital material found during search, and the themselves constitute incriminating digital material found during search, and the themselves constitute incriminating digital material found during search, and the same have been specifically relied upon by the AO as the foundational material en specifically relied upon by the AO as the foundational material en specifically relied upon by the AO as the foundational material for issuing show-cause and for drawing the inference of unaccounted cash cause and for drawing the inference of unaccounted cash cause and for drawing the inference of unaccounted cash payment. In such a case, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the payment. In such a case, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the payment. In such a case, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the addition is without any incriminating m addition is without any incriminating material when the primary material is aterial when the primary material is seized during search from the seized during search from the phone of a key person, specifically refers to "Rs.5 phone of a key person, specifically refers to "Rs.5 lakhs" (coded), and is linked to Maldunge land lakhs" (coded), and is linked to Maldunge land-work of the appellant. work of the appellant. 10.6 The appellant's second contention is that no cash was found/seized during 10.6 The appellant's second contention is that no cash was found/se 10.6 The appellant's second contention is that no cash was found/se search and therefore no addition can be made. This argument is misconceived. search and therefore no addition can be made. This argument is misconceived. search and therefore no addition can be made. This argument is misconceived. Non-finding of physical cash at the time of search does not negate the existence of finding of physical cash at the time of search does not negate the existence of finding of physical cash at the time of search does not negate the existence of a cash transaction, particularly where the incriminating material is in digital form a cash transaction, particularly where the incriminating material is in digital for a cash transaction, particularly where the incriminating material is in digital for showing instructions/payment confirmation. The statutory requirement for showing instructions/payment confirmation. The statutory requirement for showing instructions/payment confirmation. The statutory requirement for invoking section 69A is not the seizure of cash as a condition precedent, but invoking section 69A is not the seizure of cash as a condition precedent, but invoking section 69A is not the seizure of cash as a condition precedent, but whether the assessee is found to be the owner/possessor of money not recorded whether the assessee is found to be the owner/possessor of money not recorded whether the assessee is found to be the owner/possessor of money not recorded in the books and for whic in the books and for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. Here, the h no satisfactory explanation is offered. Here, the record-based inference is that Rs.5,00,000/ based inference is that Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash for the appellant's was paid in cash for the appellant's Maldunge land approval Maldunge land approval-related work, and no contemporaneous accounting related work, and no contemporaneous accounting explanation or documentary substantiation has been explanation or documentary substantiation has been produced by the appellant produced by the appellant to rebut the seized digital trail. to rebut the seized digital trail.

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 7 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

10.7 The appellant's third contention is that the statement of Shri Jayvardhan 10.7 The appellant's third contention is that the statement of Shri Jayvardhan 10.7 The appellant's third contention is that the statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka is retracted and thus cannot be relied upon. The record indicates that the Goenka is retracted and thus cannot be relied upon. The record indicates that the Goenka is retracted and thus cannot be relied upon. The record indicates that the appellant relies upon a retraction appellant relies upon a retraction affidavit alleging stress/duress and contends affidavit alleging stress/duress and contends that there was no admission. Even assuming the retraction is pleaded, the that there was no admission. Even assuming the retraction is pleaded, the that there was no admission. Even assuming the retraction is pleaded, the present addition is not based merely on an uncorroborated confession; rather, it present addition is not based merely on an uncorroborated confession; rather, it present addition is not based merely on an uncorroborated confession; rather, it is grounded in seized digital WhatsApp chats recovered is grounded in seized digital WhatsApp chats recovered during search, and further supported by the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi explaining that the further supported by the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi explaining that the further supported by the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi explaining that the coded reference and the payment pertain to Maldunge land approval-related coded reference and the payment pertain to Maldunge land approval coded reference and the payment pertain to Maldunge land approval work of the appellant. It is seen from record that this alleged retraction was made work of the appellant. It is seen from record that this alleged retraction was made work of the appellant. It is seen from record that this alleged retraction was made after almost 520 days from the date of recording of statement. Such prolonged after almost 520 days from the date of recording of statement. Such prolonged after almost 520 days from the date of recording of statement. Such prolonged and inordinate delay completely erodes the credibility of the retraction and clearly and inordinate delay completely erodes the credibility of the retraction and clearly and inordinate delay completely erodes the credibility of the retraction and clearly establishes it to be an afterthought. Retraction, to have evidentiary value, must establishes it to be an afterthought. Retraction, to have evidentiary value, must establishes it to be an afterthought. Retraction, to have evidentiary value, must be prompt and supported by cogent contemporaneous material. In the present nd supported by cogent contemporaneous material. In the present nd supported by cogent contemporaneous material. In the present case, no such material has been furnished. Mere bald allegations of pressure, case, no such material has been furnished. Mere bald allegations of pressure, case, no such material has been furnished. Mere bald allegations of pressure, raised after nearly one and a half years, cannot override the evidentiary value of raised after nearly one and a half years, cannot override the evidentiary value of raised after nearly one and a half years, cannot override the evidentiary value of statements recorded on oath and statements recorded on oath and seized digital communications. Therefore, the seized digital communications. Therefore, the retraction plea does not, by itself, demolish the evidentiary worth of the seized retraction plea does not, by itself, demolish the evidentiary worth of the seized retraction plea does not, by itself, demolish the evidentiary worth of the seized digital communications and the consistent explanation of the payer/handler of digital communications and the consistent explanation of the payer/handler of digital communications and the consistent explanation of the payer/handler of the cash. 10.8 The plea of violation of natural j 10.8 The plea of violation of natural justice on account of non ustice on account of non-grant of cross- examination is also untenable. The addition is not based merely on third-party examination is also untenable. The addition is not based merely on third examination is also untenable. The addition is not based merely on third statement but primarily on seized digital evidence recovered during search, which statement but primarily on seized digital evidence recovered during search, which statement but primarily on seized digital evidence recovered during search, which was confronted to both Shri Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri Jitendra Rathi. The was confronted to both Shri Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri was confronted to both Shri Jayvardhan Goenka and Shri appellant was issued show cause notice and afforded opportunity to explain the appellant was issued show cause notice and afforded opportunity to explain the appellant was issued show cause notice and afforded opportunity to explain the transaction. Despite this, no documentary evidence or books of account were transaction. Despite this, no documentary evidence or books of account were transaction. Despite this, no documentary evidence or books of account were produced to rebut the seized material. The appellant has also failed to produced to rebut the seized material. The appellant has also failed to produced to rebut the seized material. The appellant has also failed to demonstrate how cross te how cross-examination would negate the seized WhatsApp examination would negate the seized WhatsApp communications forming the foundation of the addition. communications forming the foundation of the addition. 10.9 The appellant's reliance on CBDT instructions against coercive confessions 10.9 The appellant's reliance on CBDT instructions against coercive confessions 10.9 The appellant's reliance on CBDT instructions against coercive confessions and various judicial precedents is misplaced. The AO has not proceeded on and various judicial precedents is misplaced. The AO has not pr and various judicial precedents is misplaced. The AO has not pr confession alone but on concrete digital evidence recovered during search. The confession alone but on concrete digital evidence recovered during search. The confession alone but on concrete digital evidence recovered during search. The instructions emphasize evidence instructions emphasize evidence-based additions, which is precisely what has based additions, which is precisely what has been done in the present case. These instructions cannot be read as disabling the been done in the present case. These instructions cannot be read as disabling the been done in the present case. These instructions cannot be read as disabling the Department from relying on evidence gathered ent from relying on evidence gathered during search; rather, they during search; rather, they emphasize that additions should be evidence emphasize that additions should be evidence-based. In the present case, the AO's based. In the present case, the AO's action is, in substance, consistent with that principle because the addition is action is, in substance, consistent with that principle because the addition is action is, in substance, consistent with that principle because the addition is predicated upon seized digita predicated upon seized digital evidence (WhatsApp communications) and the l evidence (WhatsApp communications) and the explanatory statements recorded when such evidence was confronted. explanatory statements recorded when such evidence was confronted. explanatory statements recorded when such evidence was confronted. 10.10 The argument that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka did not "approve" the cash 10.10 The argument that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka did not "approve" the cash 10.10 The argument that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka did not "approve" the cash payment is also immaterial. Section 69A concerns ownership of unexplained payment is also immaterial. Section 69A concerns ownership of unexplai payment is also immaterial. Section 69A concerns ownership of unexplai money. The seized chats, coupled with statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi, clearly money. The seized chats, coupled with statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi, clearly money. The seized chats, coupled with statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi, clearly establish that the cash payment was made for the appellant's Maldunge land establish that the cash payment was made for the appellant's Maldunge land establish that the cash payment was made for the appellant's Maldunge land work and the appellant is the sole beneficiary of such unaccounted expenditure. work and the appellant is the sole beneficiary of such unaccounted expenditure. work and the appellant is the sole beneficiary of such unaccounted expenditure. The appellant has failed to explain the source of such cash. The appellant has failed to explain the source of such cash. The appellant has failed to explain the source of such cash. The appellant has

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 8 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

argued that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka did not recall the Maldunge matter and argued that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka did not recall the Maldunge matter and argued that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka did not recall the Maldunge matter and therefore the link to the appellant is "assumed". The record, however, contains the therefore the link to the appellant is "assumed". The record, however, contains the therefore the link to the appellant is "assumed". The record, however, contains the specific statement attributed to him specific statement attributed to him that "5kg mangoes refers to Rs.5 lakhs given that "5kg mangoes refers to Rs.5 lakhs given to Mr. Rajiv Agarwal in cash" though he states he does not recall Maldunge. The to Mr. Rajiv Agarwal in cash" though he states he does not recall Maldunge. The to Mr. Rajiv Agarwal in cash" though he states he does not recall Maldunge. The relevant part of the statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka's is reproduced as relevant part of the statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka's is reproduced as relevant part of the statement of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka's is reproduced as under: "Q.29 With respect to your above reply, Please "Q.29 With respect to your above reply, Please offer your comments on the above offer your comments on the above mentioned whatsapp conversation. mentioned whatsapp conversation. Ans. To the best of my knowledge, Rajiv sir is Mr. Rajiv Agarwal who was the Ans. To the best of my knowledge, Rajiv sir is Mr. Rajiv Agarwal who was the Ans. To the best of my knowledge, Rajiv sir is Mr. Rajiv Agarwal who was the COO of DB realty Itd. 5kg mangoes refers to Rs.5lakhs given to Mr.Rajiv Agarwal COO of DB realty Itd. 5kg mangoes refers to Rs.5lakhs given to Mr.Rajiv Agarwal COO of DB realty Itd. 5kg mangoes refers to Rs.5lakhs given to Mr.Rajiv Agarwal in cash, however I don't recall in cash, however I don't recall the maldunge matter." 10.11 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has 10.11 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has 10.11 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has overlooked the chat related to cash given to Mr. Rajiv Agrawal (as mentioned overlooked the chat related to cash given to Mr. Rajiv Agrawal (as mentioned overlooked the chat related to cash given to Mr. Rajiv Agrawal (as mentioned above). It is crystal clear from the aforesaid chat that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka above). It is crystal clear from the aforesaid chat that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka above). It is crystal clear from the aforesaid chat that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka himself written Yes' to the confirmation message sent by Shri Jitendra Rathi, The himself written Yes' to the confirmation message sent by Shri Jitendra Rathi, The himself written Yes' to the confirmation message sent by Shri Jitendra Rathi, The AO in the assessment order further recorded that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka has AO in the assessment order further recorded that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka has AO in the assessment order further recorded that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka has noted / agreed / accepted the confirmation given by Shri Jitendra Rathi. In such noted / agreed / accepted the confirmation given by Shri Jitendra Rathi. In such noted / agreed / accepted the confirmation given by Shri Jitendra Rathi. In such a scenario, the contention of the appellant that he never had agreed or accepted ontention of the appellant that he never had agreed or accepted ontention of the appellant that he never had agreed or accepted or admitted being informed by Shri Jitendra Rathi for any cash payment to Mr. or admitted being informed by Shri Jitendra Rathi for any cash payment to Mr. or admitted being informed by Shri Jitendra Rathi for any cash payment to Mr. Rajiv Agarwal is not acceptable. Rajiv Agarwal is not acceptable. 10.12 This is significant for two reasons: first, it reinforces the coded meaning of 10.12 This is significant for two reasons: first, it reinforces the coded meaning 10.12 This is significant for two reasons: first, it reinforces the coded meaning "5kg mangoes" as Rs.5 lakhs cash; and second, the linkage to Maldunge is not "5kg mangoes" as Rs.5 lakhs cash; and second, the linkage to Maldunge is not "5kg mangoes" as Rs.5 lakhs cash; and second, the linkage to Maldunge is not derived only from his recollection but is explicitly provided in the statement of Shri derived only from his recollection but is explicitly provided in the statement of Shri derived only from his recollection but is explicitly provided in the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi when the chats were confronted to him, wherein he states the Jitendra Rathi when the chats were confronted to him, wherein he states the Jitendra Rathi when the chats were confronted to him, wherein he states the cash was given for Maldunge land approval en for Maldunge land approval-related work of the appellant. Thus, related work of the appellant. Thus, the appellant's plea of "no link" is not acceptable. the appellant's plea of "no link" is not acceptable. 10.13 The appellant's further argument that the Department has not proved that 10.13 The appellant's further argument that the Department has not proved that 10.13 The appellant's further argument that the Department has not proved that Shri Jayvardhan Goenka "approved" the cash payment is also not decisive in the Shri Jayvardhan Goenka "approved" the cash payment is als Shri Jayvardhan Goenka "approved" the cash payment is als context of section 69A. The issue for adjudication here is whether unaccounted context of section 69A. The issue for adjudication here is whether unaccounted context of section 69A. The issue for adjudication here is whether unaccounted cash payment of Rs.5,00,000/ cash payment of Rs.5,00,000/- pertaining to the appellant's Maldunge land pertaining to the appellant's Maldunge land approval-related work has been established from the material, and whether the related work has been established from the material, and whether the related work has been established from the material, and whether the appellant has satisfactorily explained the same. The seized chats show ellant has satisfactorily explained the same. The seized chats show ellant has satisfactorily explained the same. The seized chats show instruction/communication; the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi explains instruction/communication; the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi explains instruction/communication; the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi explains payment and its purpose for the appellant's Maldunge land work; and the payment and its purpose for the appellant's Maldunge land work; and the payment and its purpose for the appellant's Maldunge land work; and the appellant has not produced any satisfactory has not produced any satisfactory explanation with supporting explanation with supporting evidence to neutralize this trail. evidence to neutralize this trail. 10.14 In view of the above, I hold that the AO has brought on record incriminating 10.14 In view of the above, I hold that the AO has brought on record incriminating 10.14 In view of the above, I hold that the AO has brought on record incriminating digital material found during search and a coherent trail of the unaccounted cash digital material found during search and a coherent trail of the unaccounted cash digital material found during search and a coherent trail of the unaccounted cash payment, namely: seized Wha payment, namely: seized WhatsApp communications evidencing "Rs.5 lakhs" tsApp communications evidencing "Rs.5 lakhs" (coded as "5kg mangoes"), direction/communication attributable to a key person, (coded as "5kg mangoes"), direction/communication attributable to a key person, (coded as "5kg mangoes"), direction/communication attributable to a key person, confirmation/explanation in the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi that the cash confirmation/explanation in the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi that the cash confirmation/explanation in the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi that the cash

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 9 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

was given to Shri Rajiv Agarwal for Maldunge land ap was given to Shri Rajiv Agarwal for Maldunge land approval proval-related work of the appellant, and absence of any satisfactory rebuttal with supporting evidence appellant, and absence of any satisfactory rebuttal with supporting evidence appellant, and absence of any satisfactory rebuttal with supporting evidence from the appellant. 10. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition rests substantially upon the statement of Shri Jitendra addition rests substantially upon the statement of addition rests substantially upon the statement of Rathi, whereas Shri Jayvardhan Goenka himself stated that he did Shri Jayvardhan Goenka himself stated that he did Shri Jayvardhan Goenka himself stated that he did not recall the MalDunge matter. It was therefore submitted that not recall the MalDunge matter It was therefore submitted that there was no admission by Shri Jayvardhan Goenka that the there was no admission by Shri Jayvardhan Goenka that the there was no admission by Shri Jayvardhan Goenka that the alleged payment was made on behalf of the assessee. The learned alleged payment was made on behalf of the assessee. The lear alleged payment was made on behalf of the assessee. The lear counsel further submitted that the statements of Shri Jayvardhan counsel further submitted that the statements of Shri Jayvardhan counsel further submitted that the statements of Shri Jayvardhan Goenka Goenka Goenka and and and Shri Shri Shri Jitendra Jitendra Jitendra Rathi Rathi Rathi were were were recorded recorded recorded under under under circumstances circumstances circumstances of of of stress, stress, stress, duress duress duress and and and pressure pressure pressure and and and were were were subsequently retracted. It was contended that the Assessing Officer subsequently retracted. It was contended that the Assessing Officer subsequently retracted. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had not made any independent inquiry to establish that the alleged ny independent inquiry to establish that the alleged ny independent inquiry to establish that the alleged payment was actually made on behalf of the assessee or that it payment was actually made on behalf of the assessee or that it payment was actually made on behalf of the assessee or that it related to any particular approval concerning the assessee's related to any particular approval concerning the assessee's related to any particular approval concerning the assessee's MalDunge project. It was further submitted that the assessee was MalDunge project. It was further submitted that the assessee was MalDunge project. It was further submitted that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross n opportunity to cross-examine Shri Jitendra Rathi or examine Shri Jitendra Rathi or Shri Jayvardhan Goenka, despite the statements being relied upon Shri Jayvardhan Goenka, despite the statements being relied upon Shri Jayvardhan Goenka, despite the statements being relied upon against the assessee. The learned counsel also pointed out that no against the assessee. The learned counsel also pointed out that no against the assessee. The learned counsel also pointed out that no incriminating material evidencing the alleged cash payment was incriminating material evidencing the alleged cash payment was incriminating material evidencing the alleged cash payment was found from the premises of the assessee and no cash was found rom the premises of the assessee and no cash was found rom the premises of the assessee and no cash was found during the search. Reliance was placed, inter alia, upon the during the search. Reliance was placed, inter alia, upon the during the search. Reliance was placed, inter alia, upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Harjeev CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) Aggarwal [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi).

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 10 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

11.

The learned Departmental Represen The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied tative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).

12.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The short question that arises for our material available on record. The short question that arises for our material available on record. The short question that arises for our consideration is whet consideration is whether, on the material brought on record, the her, on the material brought on record, the alleged payment of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv Agarwal Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv Agarwal can be conclusively attributed to the assessee so as to sustain the addition conclusively attributed to the assessee so as to sustain the addition conclusively attributed to the assessee so as to sustain the addition under section 69A of the Act. under section 69A of the Act.

13.

The material relied upon by the Revenue consists The material relied upon by the Revenue consists principally of the principally of the WhatsApp communication between WhatsApp communication between Shri Jitendra Rathi and Shri Shri Jitendra Rathi and Shri Jayvardhan Goenka and the statements recorded from them under and the statements recorded from them under section 132(4) of the Act. The relevant communication records the section 132(4) of the Act. The relevant communication records the section 132(4) of the Act. The relevant communication records the message of Shri Jitendra Rathi that “5kg mango” h message of Shri Jitendra Rathi that “5kg mango” had been given to ad been given to “Rajiv sir” in relation to the “Mal “Rajiv sir” in relation to the “Mal-Dunge matter”, to which Shri Dunge matter”, to which Shri Jayvardhan Goenka responded “ok”. Shri Jayvardhan Goenka Jayvardhan Goenka responded “ok”. Shri Jayvardhan Goenka Jayvardhan Goenka responded “ok”. Shri Jayvardhan Goenka subsequently explained that “5kg mangoes” referred to Rs.5 lakh subsequently explained that “5kg mangoes” referred to subsequently explained that “5kg mangoes” referred to given in cash to Shri Rajiv Agarwal given in cash to Shri Rajiv Agarwal, but, significantly, he also stated but, significantly, he also stated that he did not recall the MalDunge matter. that he did not recall the MalDunge matter.

14.

The statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi Shri Jitendra Rathi supplied the further link by supplied the further link by stating that the cash was given to Shri Rajiv Agarwal for approval- stating that the cash was given to Shri Rajiv Agarwal for approval stating that the cash was given to Shri Rajiv Agarwal for approval related work concerning the MalDunge l related work concerning the MalDunge land of the assessee. and of the assessee. However, this statement, by itself, does not establish the precise However, this statement, by itself, does not establish the precise However, this statement, by itself, does not establish the precise nature of the alleged approval, the person to whom the amount was nature of the alleged approval, the person to whom the amount was nature of the alleged approval, the person to whom the amount was

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 11 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

ultimately paid, or the circumstances in which the amount was ultimately paid, or the circumstances in which the amount was ultimately paid, or the circumstances in which the amount was allegedly incurred on behalf of the asse allegedly incurred on behalf of the assessee. More importantly, the ssee. More importantly, the Assessing Officer did not make any independent inquiry from Shri Assessing Officer did not make any independent inquiry from Assessing Officer did not make any independent inquiry from Jitendra Rathi or Shri Rajiv Agarwal Jitendra Rathi or Shri Rajiv Agarwal to ascertain whether the to ascertain whether the alleged amount was in fact paid to Shri Rajiv Agarwal, whether it alleged amount was in fact paid to Shri Rajiv Agarwal, whether it alleged amount was in fact paid to Shri Rajiv Agarwal, whether it was received by him, and, if so, wh was received by him, and, if so, whether it was actually incurred for ether it was actually incurred for any identified approval or other work of the assessee. any identified approval or other work of the assessee. any identified approval or other work of the assessee.

15.

The Assessing Officer also did not put any specific question to The Assessing Officer also did not put any specific question to Shri The Assessing Officer also did not put any specific question to Jayvardhan Goenka to ascertain whether the reference to the “Mal to ascertain whether the reference to the “Mal- Dunge matter” related to th Dunge matter” related to the assessee, whether the alleged payment e assessee, whether the alleged payment was made by him in his individual capacity or on behalf of the was made by him in his individual capacity or on behalf of the was made by him in his individual capacity or on behalf of the assessee, or whether he had authorised or otherwise had knowledge assessee, or whether he had authorised or otherwise had knowledge assessee, or whether he had authorised or otherwise had knowledge of any such payment on behalf of the assessee. These aspects of any such payment on behalf of the assessee. These aspects of any such payment on behalf of the assessee. These aspects assume significance becaus assume significance because the addition is not merely based upon e the addition is not merely based upon establishing that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was mentioned in the seized establishing that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was mentioned in the seized establishing that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was mentioned in the seized communication; the Revenue was required to establish the communication; the Revenue was required to establish the communication; the Revenue was required to establish the necessary nexus between the alleged payment and the assessee. necessary nexus between the alleged payment and the assessee. necessary nexus between the alleged payment and the assessee.

16.

We further find that Shri J Shri Jitendra Rathi was not subjected to cross itendra Rathi was not subjected to cross- examination by the assessee examination by the assessee, notwithstanding that his statement notwithstanding that his statement constitutes the principal link connecting the alleged payment with constitutes the principal link connecting the alleged payment with constitutes the principal link connecting the alleged payment with the assessee. The seized WhatsApp communication establishes, at the assessee. The seized WhatsApp communication establishes, at the assessee. The seized WhatsApp communication establishes, at the highest, a commu the highest, a communication concerning an alleged payment of nication concerning an alleged payment of Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv Agarwal. It does not, by itself, establish that Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv Agarwal. It does not, by itself, establish that Rs.5 lakh to Shri Rajiv Agarwal. It does not, by itself, establish that the payment was made the payment was made on behalf of the assessee on behalf of the assessee. The further

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 12 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

attribution of the payment to the assessee flows from the statement attribution of the payment to the assessee flows from the statement attribution of the payment to the assessee flows from the statement of Shri Jitendra Rathi. In the absence of an opportunity to test that ra Rathi. In the absence of an opportunity to test that ra Rathi. In the absence of an opportunity to test that statement by cross-examination, and in the absence of independent examination, and in the absence of independent examination, and in the absence of independent inquiry or corroborative material establishing the nexus with the inquiry or corroborative material establishing the nexus with the inquiry or corroborative material establishing the nexus with the assessee, such statement cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient assessee, such statement cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient assessee, such statement cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient foundation for sustaining the addition. ndation for sustaining the addition.

17.

The fact that the assessee's cash book did not record the alleged The fact that the assessee's cash book did not record the alleged The fact that the assessee's cash book did not record the alleged payment also cannot, by itself, establish that the payment was payment also cannot, by itself, establish that the payment was payment also cannot, by itself, establish that the payment was made by or on behalf of the assessee. Non made by or on behalf of the assessee. Non-recording of a recording of a transaction may justify furt transaction may justify further inquiry; it does not dispense with her inquiry; it does not dispense with the requirement of establishing, on the basis of legally admissible the requirement of establishing, on the basis of legally admissible the requirement of establishing, on the basis of legally admissible and properly tested material, that the unexplained money belonged and properly tested material, that the unexplained money belonged and properly tested material, that the unexplained money belonged to the assessee.

18.

We therefore find that the Assessing Officer did not carry out We therefore find that the Assessing Officer did not carry out the We therefore find that the Assessing Officer did not carry out inquiries necessary to establish the live nexus between the seized inquiries necessary to establish the live nexus between the seized inquiries necessary to establish the live nexus between the seized communication, the alleged payment to communication, the alleged payment to Shri Rajiv Agarwal Shri Rajiv Agarwal, and the assessee. The learned CIT(A), while affirming the addition, the assessee. The learned CIT(A), while affirming the addition, the assessee. The learned CIT(A), while affirming the addition, proceeded principally on the basis of the same material without proceeded principally on the basis of the same material wi proceeded principally on the basis of the same material wi addressing the aforesaid evidentiary deficiencies. The addition thus addressing the aforesaid evidentiary deficiencies. The addition thus addressing the aforesaid evidentiary deficiencies. The addition thus rests on an untested statement of a third party without adequate rests on an untested statement of a third party without adequate rests on an untested statement of a third party without adequate independent corroboration establishing that the alleged payment independent corroboration establishing that the alleged payment independent corroboration establishing that the alleged payment was made on behalf of the assessee. was made on behalf of the assessee.

ITA 5120/MUM/2026 13 Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd. Maldunge Retreat & Farming Pvt. Ltd.

19.

In these circumstances, the addition of cumstances, the addition of Rs.5,00,000/ Rs.5,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act cannot be sustained 69A of the Act cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the We accordingly set aside the findings of the lower authorities on this issue and delete the findings of the lower authorities on this issue and delete the findings of the lower authorities on this issue and delete the addition of Rs.5,00,000/ Rs.5,00,000/-.

20.

Ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the assessee Ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the assessee on merits are accordingly on merits are accordingly allowed. In view of the relief granted to the assessee on merits, In view of the relief granted to the assessee on merits, In view of the relief granted to the assessee on merits, Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of the reopening under Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of the reopening under Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of the reopening under section 147 of the Act is left open and is not adjudicated, as its section 147 of the Act is left open and is not adjudicated section 147 of the Act is left open and is not adjudicated adjudication is rendered academic. adjudication is rendered academic.

21.

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 24/ /09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/09/2026 /2026 Kunal Kr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →