VINOD DODHIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3, THANE, THANE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 to 2016-17 respectively) Mr. Vinod Dodhia Vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane A-903/90, Sarvoday Room no. 12, A Wing, Heights, Jain Mandir, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Mulund West, Mumbai, Park, Thane West, Maharashtra 400080 Maharashtra - 400604 PAN/GIR No. AAZPD5383Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal Revenue by Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Office of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. The Assess is an individual and is regularly assessed to tax. A search & seizure action u/s 132 was carried out in Dodhia Group including the Assessee on 27.11.2019.

2 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

Susequently, a notice u/s 153C was issued on 08.10.2021 for the A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The major issues involved in all these 3 appeals are common. 3. The year wise additions against which the Assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal is tabulated hereunder:

3 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

accepted that amount of Rs.43 crores approximately was routed through M/s. Vinam Finance Pvt. Ltd.

4 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

contended that the material seized from Shri Divyesh Dhanani is prima facie in the nature of ‘dumb documents’ and no cognizance thereof needs to be taken as 'evidence', and therefore all the analysis and conclusions drawn by the Revenue authorities are conjectures that are 'presumptive' or ‘inferential’ in nature, not borne out from the bare contents of the said seized material, as such. 7. On Appeal Ld. CIT(A) had observed that various entities of Dodhia Group had taken accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans/share capital from various shell entities as per information received from Investigation Wing Kolkata. The AO had issued the commission u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act to Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The DDIT, Investigation Unit 2(4), Kolkata reported that the Inspector deputed to verify the existence of these companies, reported that no such company was found at the given address. Similarly, the summons issued to the companies remained unserved. With above background, the AO required the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of these loans taken during the year and ultimately made the Addition. Grounds of Appeal in ITA no. 3434/Mum/2025 (A.Y.: 2014-15) 8. The grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal are interlinked and inter connected and relates to challenging the order Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions made by

5 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

AO. We notice that the major issues and material relied upon being common, thus all these grounds are being adjudicated together, For the sake of discussion and arguments, the A.Y. 2014-15 has been taken as the lead year. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2014-15:

i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 25,00,000/-u/s 68 of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act dated 26.12.2022 on account of unsecured loans received by the Assessee from M/s Bridhi Marketing Private Limited, which were treated as unexplained cash credits though the Assessee had duly discharged its onus under section 68, by submitting all the relevant documentary evidences to prove identity and creditworthiness of the lender company and genuineness of the transactions. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 25,00,000/-ignoring the fact that the loans taken stood duly repaid in subsequent years much before the date of search which proves fect that loans taken were genuine. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 25,00,000/-on account of unsecured loans without there being any evidence of cash paid at the time of receipt of alleged non-genuine unsecured loans and without there being any evidence of cash received at the time of repayment of alleged non-genuine unsecured loans from/to M/s Bridhi Marketing Private Limited. iv. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-by holding the above-mentioned company as paper/shell/non-genuine entity even though the company was MCA Active both at the

6 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

time of taking of such loans and at the time of repayment of the loans. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 25,00,000/-despite the fact that the assessment for AY 2014-15 had attained finality and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date of search that could be abated particularly in view of the fact no incriminating material was found during the course of search & seizure action. vi. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in, law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition of unsecured loans in the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer has made addition solely on the basis of borrowed information received from Investigation Wing and without making any enquiries on his own. vii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming additions of Rs 3,75,90,000/-out of addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs 7,21,00,000/- and of Rs 46,00,000/-out of addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs 4,51,00,000/-, which were based on loose papers seized from Party MN-5, Bundles Number 7 & Bundle Number 9, since such loose papers were dumb documents in as much as  the same did not record the names of payers of such alleged cash receipts to the Assessee,  the same did not record the nature of transaction,  statement of authors of such papers were not brought on record,  the Assessee was never confronted and examined on such papers and  the Assessing Officer did not bring on record the statement of Divyesh Dhanani from whose premises such papers were seized, on the contents of the papers viii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming additions of Rs 3,75,90,000/-and of Rs 46,00,000/- as no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to conclusively establish that alleged cash receipts recorded on such papers, which were

7 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

seized from the premises of a third party, constituted income in the hands of the Assessee. ix. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming additions of Rs 3,75,90,000/-and of Rs 46,00,000/- in as much as no inquiries were made by either the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals) from payers of such alleged cash payments to Assessee and how these were accounted in the hands of such payers. x. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming additions of Rs 3,75,90,000/-and of Rs 46,00,000/- on the basis of alleged cash receipts recorded in seized Bundle Number 3, Bundle Number 7 & Bundle Number 9, since such alleged cash receipts cannot be held to be unexplained money, bullion, jewellery, etc. of which Assessee was found to be the owner during the financial year ended on 31.03.2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The search action on Dodhia group was carried out in November, 2019 wherein the Assessee was not covered or found to be owner of any such alleged unaccounted cash, bullion, jewellery to the extent of Rs 4,21,90,000 Thus basic (3,75,90,000+46,00,000). jurisdictional conditions for invoking section 69A are not satisfied. xi. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, even if it were to be held that alleged cash payments were received by Assessee, then also any such receipts, as a result of family settlement in Dodhia Group cannot be held to be Assessee's income chargeable to tax under Income Tax Act, 1961. xii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Ausennee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 4,46,90,000/- even though no unaccounted assets in the form of cash, jewellery or stock were found. xiii. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and for delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.

8 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

Facts and Background of the Case for A.Y. 2014-15 9. As per the facts of the present case, the original return of income was filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 23,02,970/-. Thereafter, on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv), Unit-2(1), Kolkata, a notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 08.10.2021. The assessment u/s, 153 was completed on 26.12.2022, assessing total income at Rs 12,43,08,670/- after making the following additions:

i. Addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act for accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan, ii. Addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act for cash receipts as per bundle no. 3, page no. 52/party MN-5. iii. Cash receipts of Rs. 7,21,00,000/-as found recorded on page 9 and 11, bundle no. 7/party MN-5 vi. Addition of Rs. 45,700/- for cash receipts as per page no. 17, bundle no. 7/party MN-5. v. Addition of Rs. 14,60,000/- for cash receipts as per page no. 25, bundle no. 7/party MN-5. vi. Addition of Rs. 4,51,00,000/- for various cash receipts as found recorded in bundle no. 9/party MN-5. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the following additions:

i. Addition of Rs 25,00,000/-on account Bogus Unsecured Loans u/s 68 of the Act. ii. Addition of Rs 3,75,90,000/- on the basis of loose paper bundle No-7, page 9 & 11 u/s 69A of the Act. iii. Addition of Rs 46,00,000 on the basis of loose paper bundle No-9 u/s 69A of the Act.

9 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

Additions made by AO u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans [Relevant for AY 2014-15]

a. Copy of PAN b. Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association c. MCA Active Compliant Status d. Acknowledgement of Return of Income for A.Y. 2014- 15. e. Director’s report and Audited Financial Statements viz. Independent Auditor’s report and annexures thereto, Audited balance sheet, Audited profit and loss account, significant accounting policies and notes to accounts

10 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

forming part of balance sheet for the year ended 31.03.2014 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15. f. Confirmation of accounts showing date, full particulars, amount received as loan, etc. for the previous year ended on 31st March, 2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-15. g. Copy of bank statement of the assess showing the loan receipt and repayment transactions with the lender company. 14. Thus, relying on the above evidences/details, the Assessee contended that the identity of the lenders had been established on the basis of the PAN, return of income, account confirmation of above-mentioned parties. The genuineness of the transactions had also been established on the basis of account confirmation & bank statements filed before the Assessing Officer, where all the loans taken from above mentioned parties by account payee cheques are reflected in the bank statements. The creditworthiness of the lenders was established on the basis of balance sheet of above-mentioned parties filed before the Assessing Officer. From the balance sheets, it can be seen that the above lenders had surplus funds, while carrying out their trading business activity & these funds were loaned against interest and these loans were repaid in subsequent year(s). therefore, in this way the Assessee had discharged his onus as required u/s. 68 of the Act by filing the necessary documentary evidences. The Assessee further contends that on the contrary, the AO has violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the copies of enquiry reports

11 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

conducted at the back of the Assessee and the opportunity of cross examination of so-called accommodation entry operators was also not provided by the AO. Further, no incriminating material, in the form of any cash trail has been found during the search or even after Search through any independent enquiries by the AO, so as to enable the AO to shift the onus back onto the Assessee. 15. We noticed that, Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various case-laws mentioned in para 23 to 32 of its order upheld the addition u/s 68 of the Act, in respect of this loan. The Ld. CIT(A) based his finding on the ground that the creditors were not found existing at the given addresses and the Assessee failed to produce the directors of these companies as required by the Assessing Officer. In this regard it was submitted by the Assessee that lenders are MCA active companies and are on compliance record of Income Tax Department through compliances before their respective jurisdictional PAN-AO. If these are not found on their addresses, years after the transactions with the Assessee, then in that eventually how the onus of finding them can be foisted onto the Assessee. Further, the insistence by both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) to produce the directors of a third-party legal entity is well beyond the control of the Assessee. It is on the contrary, well within the powers of the revenue authorities to ensure their attendance, if they are

12 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

so required. The Assessee finally concluded that after having submitted all possible details to discharge the onus and the Assessing Officer not carrying out any independent enquiry through banking channels or through the lender's jurisdictional AOs to disprove any of the documents submitted by the Assessee, leads to the conclusion that Revenue has failed to discharge their onus. 16. The Assessee brought on record an undisputed fact that for AY 2013-14 and AY 2015-16, the loans which was treated as unexplained cash credit, have already been repaid much before the initiation of the reassessment proceedings. Such repayment has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer in the year(s) of repayment. Therefore, the alleged addition on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. The Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bhadresh M. Dodhia vs DCIT CC-3, Thane, ITA No. 2218/MUM/2025 (AY: 2013-14), dated 22.07.2025. wherein, in a group case of Assessee's group and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2024) 41 taxmann.com 250 (Guj), it was held that the addition u/s 68 of the Act and interest expenses are not justifiable. 17. The AR of the Assessee contented that company Bridhi Marketing Private Limited, had provided unsecured loan

13 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

to various companies and individuals of the Dodhia Group. the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench after going through various documents concluded that the company Bridhi Marketing Private Limited is not fictitious but is a genuine and legally existing company.

i Decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Dodhia Synthetics Ltd vs DCIT- CC3 in ITA nos, 2189 & 2190 2206/Mum/2025 dated 17/09/2025. and 2200 to ii. Decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Vasupujya Filaments us DCIT-CC- 3, Thane in ITA No. (SS)A No. 876,877,878,879,880,881,882 and 883/Mum/2025 ("F" Bench) for the A. Yrs. 2013-14 to 2020-21 dt. 25.08.2025 19. The AR further contends that on the contrary, the AO has violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the copies of enquiry reports conducted at the back of the Assessee and the opportunity of cross examination of so- called accommodation entry operators was not provided by the AO. Further, no incriminating material, in the form of any cash trail has been found during the search or even after the search through any independent enquiries by the

14 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

AO, so as to enable the AO to shift the onus back onto the Assessee. 20. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the seized material, statement of various persons recorded during the search and the reports of the Investigation Wing, drew our attention to extensive discussion on various case laws cited by the Ld. CIT(A) and relying upon the orders of both the lower authorities, argued for dismissal of grounds raised, by the Assessee on the merits against additions made u/s 68 of the Act on the account of unsecured loans. 21. We have heard the counsels for both parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. From records, we are inclined to follow the decisions of coordinate bench of Tribunal on identical issue on the same material in group cases as cited by the AR above (including the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court and Jurisdictional Tribunal referred therein) that create binding precedents as regards their ratio decidendi and thus we are of the view that when once majority of loans that were treated as unexplained cash credit, have already been repaid much before initiation of reopening proceedings and such repayments have not been doubted by the AO in the year of repayment, therefore additions on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the

15 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

Act are not sustainable and accordingly, we direct the same to be deleted. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are, accordingly allowed. Additions made by AO u/s 69A on account cash receipts as per seized materials [Relevant for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16] 22. Ground Nos. 7 to 12 relate to, and challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) of confirming addition of ₹3,75,90,000, out of the total addition of ₹7,21,80,000, made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These grounds also relate to an addition of ₹46,00,000/- u/s 69A sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) based on certain pages seized in Bundle Nos. 8 and 9 of MN-5. 23. The facts leading to the additions have been set out in Paragraph 9(b) and 9(e) respectively of the assessment order. The facts leading to the confirmation of the additions of Rs. 3,75,90,000 by the Ld. CIT(A) have been incorporated in Paragraphs 35 to 56 of his order, and the facts relating to the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 46,00,000/- (Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 21,00,000/-) have been incorporated in Paragraphs 70.1 to 72 of the appellate order. We are informed that the Department has not filed any appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) restricting the additions to the extent of the above amounts.

16 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

17 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

to the Assessee. Further, the Assessee has not been questioned at any point of time in relation to these or any other seized papers relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, the Assessee unaccounted transactions any submissions before the authorities. has denied in his

18 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

has sought to correlate them with the entries on Page no. 40 to conclude that the entries on Page no. 40 represent payments made to the Assessee. It was submitted that it is not established that any payment was made to, or received by the Assessee or that he was the owner of any money, especially case. 27. We noticed on page 58, para 48, Ld. CIT(A) has held that the entire sum of Rs. 7,21,00,000/- was received by the Assessee and his family members. This finding has again been reiterated in para 49. In para 54, the Ld. CIT(A) records a finding that a substantial portion of the amount of Rs. 3,14,35,204/- paid through banking channels were received by family members of the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the additions of the amounts received through banking channels stand accounted for, and therefore, addition fo such amounts cannot be made in the hands of the Assessee. Ld. AR further stated that it is not understandable that when the entire amount has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) to be on account of a family settlement. Then why a part of the same has been held to be accounted for in the hands of all the family members of the Assessee, and a part representing the alleged cash payments taxable in Assessee's hands. If the nature of the payments as alleged by the Ld. CIT(A) is the same, i.e., family settlement/arrangement, then the entire amount is required to be deleted as there is no prohibition under the Act that

19 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

payment by cash cannot be done in the case of a family settlement. Further, if the entire amount of Rs. 7,21,00,000/- was on account of family settlement, how can it be held that while the payments through banks have been received by all family members, the cash payments have been received entirely by the Assessee alone. It is further reiterated that there is no evidence whatsoever that any payment in cash has, in fact, been received by the Assessee nor any evidence or admission by any person that any payment by cash has been made by him to the Assessee. It was submitted that, the AO has failed to prove that the alleged cash receipts belong to the Assessee or that any person has made any payment of any cash to the Assessee. Even though search was conducted in the Dodhia group of cases, no evidence was found or any asset or money was found which would show that the Assessee was the owner of any money as alleged by the AO and Ld. CIT(A). 28. It was submitted that the seized documents relied upon by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) can at best be regarded as “dumb documents” containing jottings of certain transactions at random, the fate of which is not known. Hence, no addition whatsoever can be made on the basis of these dumb documents. The addition has been made and sustained merely on conjectures and surmises, without any corroborative evidence, statements/admission or enquiries. Hence, no cognizance can be taken of these dumb

20 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

documents. The Assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench "D" of this Tribunal dated 17/09/2025 in the case of M/s Dodhia Synthetics Ltd.(supra), para Nos. 29 to 41 to show that in that case, seized documents with jottings were held to be dumb documents with no evidentiary value and that no addition can be made on the basis of these dumb and the similar facts documents. Considering circumstances in the case of the Assessee, it was submitted that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted as the matters stands squarely covered by the said decision. 29. The Assessee has also taken a ground, without prejudice, that even if it were held for argument's sake that the alleged cash payments were received by the Assessee, then also any such receipts on account of family settlement/ arrangement in Dodhia Group, cannot be held to be taxable/chargeable to tax as only Assessee's income It may be seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the amount of Rs. 7,21,00,000/-has been received by the Assessee and his family members on account of their share in the net assets of the Dodhia group on the division of assets and liabilities of the said Group. This finding of Ld. CIT(A) is reflected in pars numbers 42.2, 42.8. 44, etc, of the appellate order. It is well settled that any amount received on account of family settlement/ arrangement, is not taxable. The Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble

21 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

ITAT "E" Bench Mumbai in the case of Sajan Azad Parikh v. ITO-7(1) Mumbai dated 13.07.2022 in ITA No. 186/Mum/2021 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and in the case of Shri Govind Kumar Khemka v. The ACIT Circle 47(1), New Delhi dt. 16.08.2019 of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi "C" Bench, Delhi in ITA No. 2963/Del/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 for the submission that money/assets received on account of family settlement is not taxable. The Assessee submitted that there is no provision in the Act that receipt of money by cash in a case of family arrangement/settlement is prohibited and is liable to be taxed. Hence money. received by cash as well as by cheque, is not taxable in the case of family settlement. 30. Further, the Assessee submitted that it has not been found to be the "owner" of any money of Rs. 3,75,90,000/-or for that matter any money. Hence, the provisions of S. 69A will not apply in the case of the Assessee and thus requires to be deleted. 31. As regards the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 21,00,000/-, totally amounting to Rs. 46,00,000/- based on the seized documents page no. 17 and page no. 16 in bundle no. 9, it has been submitted that there is no evidence that any money as alleged has been received by the Assessee and that the names mentioned in the seized pages based on which the additions have been made pertains to the Assessee. The nature of the transaction is not known.

22 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

There is no admission on the part of any person that the alleged amounts have been paid to the Assessee. Therefore, no addition of such amounts can be made in the hands of the Assessee based on mere conjectures and surmises. The Assessee submitted that the seized documents in bundle no. 9 have been held to be dumb documents by the Hon'ble ITAT, "D" Bench, Mumbai in their order dt. 17.09.2025 in the case of Dodhia Synthetics Ltd (supra). 32. We have meticulously gone through the facts, documents & legal proposition of the case, we noticed that the hand written noting in the seized material as Bundle Nos. 8 and 9 of MN-5 which nowhere indicate that noting represent materialized transactions that too by the assessee under consideration. We also find that no attempts have been made by the department to identify and segregate the entries attributable to the assessee vis-à-vis other entities of the Group. Nevertheless, the presumption, if any is rebuttable and is, otherwise, to be duly supported by corroborative statements and independent enquiries, which have not been conducted with any of the transacting parties as being deciphered. The Ld. CIT(A). also has treated the dumb documents as materialized transactions without giving a clear finding as to the entity and persons with whom these transaction have taken place and whether they have materialised or not. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, arguments of the Ld. AR and the judicial

23 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

precedents referred to in the case of Dodhia Synthetics Ltd. (supra), we are inclined to allow the ground relating to additions u/s 69A on account cash receipts as per seized materials.

AY 2016-17

i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act on dated 24.12.2022. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the alleged addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- 650 rws 115BBE of the Income tax Act (The Aur) on account of alleged cash loan taken on hundi, without considering the submission made by the Assessee. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 12,00,000/- even though the document seized from Party No. MN-5, Bundle Number 6, Page No. 82 is a Promissory Note where no name of the payee is mentioned which clearly proves that no transaction got materialized thereby making it 'dumb document. iv. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

24 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 12,00,000/- as per impugned order dated 24.12.2022, even though no unaccounted assets in the form of cash, jewellery or stock were found. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Assessee's case and in law, the co-ordinate bench of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has deleted the alleged addition of Hundi Loan in case of one of the group concerns M/s Kemox Corporation in ITA No. 219/Mum/2025. vi. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and for delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 35. As per the fact in AY 2016-17 the AO made an addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) however, held that the seized page no. 82 is a Dhani-jog Hundi and therefore, provisions of section 69D of the Act shall be applicable for the said seized page. Therefore, the CIT(A) accordingly taxed the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s. 69D of the Act.

25 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

a. It is a bilateral transaction. b. It is not in vernacular language. c. It is not a 'Form' that word 'Hundi' is written on the stamped paper or not, but the 'Substance' has to be seen, as per above direct judgments. d. It is a proposed transaction which did not materialize as the relevant document was not in the found in the custody of lender and thus, the document under consideration cannot be considered even as a promissory note much less a "Hundi". 37. The Assessee placed reliance on the recent decision of Coordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in the case of Kemox Corporation vs DCIT-CC-3. Thane, ITA No: 2019/Mum/2025, dated 06.03.2025, on identical facts, which, after relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Dexan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Decision of Coordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case Ravi B Jaising vs ACIT in ITA No 4592/Mum/2017 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Niwas [2008] 170 taxman 5 (Delhi) has held that the instrument under consideration is not a Hundi as it is English language and bilateral and not tripartite.

26 IT(SS)A No. 3434, 3435 & 3436/Mum/2025

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/04/2026 Ankit, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai