ANIL RAMBHAI MEVADA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 19,67,39,459/- made by the AO on account of alleged on-money received on sale of lands in Survey Nos. 340/1 and 341 was not correct. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, finding that the seized material did not establish the receipt of brokerage and that the AO's assumptions were not supported by evidence. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the seized material did not have the name of the assessee and that the AO had not established the correctness of the land deals through Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,87,75,000/- for land in Survey No. 736/2, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had sustained an addition of Rs. 1.08 crores against the AO's Rs. 6.87 crores. The Tribunal, referring to its decision in the case of Deepak Rambhai Mevada (IT[SS]A No.109/Ahd/2025), restricted the addition to Rs. 36,66,667/- on account of the cash component paid towards the purchase of land bearing Survey No. 736/2. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the admissibility of WhatsApp chat evidence, noting it was not argued seriously and was in support of earlier grounds. The addition of Rs. 16.50 crores on account of alleged undisclosed cash/capital contribution in Safalya Infralink LLP was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere, as the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence and reassessment proceedings in related cases were dropped. The ratio for the land in Survey No. 736/2 was applied to Anil Rambhai Mevada.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard cross-appeals concerning assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 for assessees Deepak Rambhai Mevada and Anil Rambhai Mevada. These appeals arose from assessment orders passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure action on October 15, 2019, in the 'Land Broker and Financer Group' covered the assessees, who had sold land as co-owners. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on seized cell phone images and statements, alleging receipt of significant on-money payments over and above the registered land transaction values for lands in Survey Nos. 340/1, 341, and 736/2. The AO inferred coded figures in seized data represented cash payments and capital contributions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 19,67,39,459/- each to the income of Deepak Rambhai Mevada and Anil Rambhai Mevada on account of alleged on-money received on sale of lands in Survey Nos. 340/1 and 341 is justified, considering the seized material and statements? 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,87,75,000/- (1/3rd share of Rs. 20,63,25,000/-) to the income of Deepak Rambhai Mevada on account of alleged cash component paid towards the purchase of land in Survey No. 736/2 is justified? 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 16.50 crores on account of alleged undisclosed cash/capital contribution in Safalya Infralink LLP is sustainable? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the AO's assumptions regarding coded figures representing cash payments and capital contributions were not substantiated by corroborative evidence. They relied on the CIT(A)'s findings that the seized material lacked clarity, there was no basis for assuming figures represented crores, and no evidence linked chats to capital contributions or cash payments. The assessee also highlighted that reassessment proceedings in related cases were dropped. The assessee contended that WhatsApp chats, even if retrieved during search, might not constitute admissible evidence without proper corroboration. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the WhatsApp chat retrieved during the search operation constituted admissible evidence under Section 292C of the Act. They supported the AO's findings regarding coded figures and cash payments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 131,Section 148A,Section 292C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member IT(SS)A No: 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & IT(SS)A Nos: 118 & 119/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21
Deepak Rambhai Mevada The ACIT 1 Parishram Ahmedabad Central Circle-2(3), Bharwad Vas Vs Ahmedabad Village Makarba, Ahmedabad-380051 Gujarat PAN: ABXPB1575B The ACIT Deepak Rambhai Central Circle-2(3), Vs Mevada Ahmedabad 1 Parishram Ahmedabad Bharwad Vas Village Makarba, Ahmedabad-380051 Gujarat (Appellant) PAN: ABXPB1575B (Respondent)
IT(SS)A Nos: 110 & 120/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20
Anil Rambhai Mevada The ACIT 1 Parishram Ahmedabad Central Circle-2(3), Bharwad Vas Vs Ahmedabad Village Makarba, Ahmedabad-380051 Gujarat PAN: ABWPB4548B
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 2 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
The ACIT Vs Anil Rambhai Central Circle-2(3), Mevada Ahmedabad 1 Parishram Ahmedabad Bharwad Vas Village Makarba, Ahmedabad-380051 Gujarat (Appellant) PAN: ABWPB4548B Assessee Represented: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 26-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 26-03-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT[SS]A Nos. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 and IT[SS]A Nos.118 & 119/Ahd/2025 are Cross appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders both dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Asst. Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 in the case of Deepak Rambhai Mevada.
IT[SS]A Nos. 110 & 120/Ahd/2025 are Cross appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against appellate order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act relating to the Asst Year 2019-20 in the case of Anil Rambhai Mevada. The above two assesses are blood
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 3 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
brothers and co-owners of lands and additions made in their cases are identical. Hence for the sake of convenience, the above appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
IT[ss]A No.109/Ahd/2025 relating Asst. Year 2019-20 is taken as the lead case. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act carried out in the group of cases known as “Land Broker and Financer Group” on 15-10-2019 and in the residential premises of the land broker namely Shri Suresh R Thakkar and the assessee’s herein namely Mr. Deepak R Mevada and Mr. Anil R Mevada were also covered under the search action, since they sold two pieces of lands as co-owners.
2.1. In the course of search, cell phone images found and seized from Mobile Phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar at Page No. 122 to 124. Based on the images and statement of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, the AO concluded that the assessee’s herein Deepak R Mevada and Anil R Mevada along with other co-owners had received their 1/4th share alleged cash of Rs.49,46,80,500/ i.e. Rs.12,36,70,125/- over and above land transaction bearing in Survey No. 341 and similarly for land in Survey No.340/1 they received their 1/3rd share alleged cash of Rs.21,92,08,000/- i.e. Rs.7,30,69,334/- over and above land trans actions. Accordingly, proportionate on-money of Rs.19,67,39,459/ each received by them on sale of these two lands and added in the hands of Deepak R Mevada and Anil R Mevada respectively.
3.1. The Ld AO also relied upon various incriminating materials seized during the course of search proceedings conducted at the
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 4 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
premises of the assessee, Dharnidhar Developers (in which the assessees are Partners). Notably, the AO referred to an image (page 66 of Annexure A-10, comprising pages 1 to 211) retrieved from the mobile phone of Alpesh Thakore, an employee of Dharnidhar Developers. On examination, this image contained handwritten notings dated 06.10.2018, which referred to land bearing Survey No. 736/2, admeasuring 4351 square yards, jointly owned by the assessee and his brothers, Anil and Dhiren Bharwad. The notings included coded entries such as a figure of Rs.3,26,32,500 (i.e., 4351 sq.yds. x Rs.7500), specific payment dates, and a note referencing deduction of Rs.9,30,000/- pertaining to Devan Vaghela. In the post-search statement recorded on 06.02.2020, Shri Dhiren R. Bharwad admitted that the said page related to the afore mentioned land transaction and that the figures were in coded form, though he was unable to recall specific transactional details. Additionally, digital images appearing at pages 66 and 67 of Annexure (pages 1 to 69) extracted from the assessee's iPhone also contained a copy of the 'F' Form and a land map relating to Survey No. 736/2, which, as per the assessee's statement, pertained to land purchased from Ravindra Hotilal Maheshwari.
3.2. Analysis of the said seized digital data, incriminating images in an Annexure named Volume-1 containing page No.1 to 415 was prepared. Image No. c73367b6-aa-46-4bdd-b9ee-3097cd3039dc appearing at Page No.67 shows details of land transaction related to Survey No.736/1+2+3+4+5. During post search proceedings, statement of Shri Suresh R Thakkar was recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act on 30.11.2019 wherein he was confronted with the content of
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 5 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
the aforesaid page No.67 found from his mobile. In reply to Q.No.5, Shri Suresh R Thakkar affirmed that the said page and contents thereof are in respect of land purchased by the assessee situated at Spring Valley Scheme, behind Karnavati Plot, Ahmedabad. Whatsapp Chat retrieved from Iphone Mobile of Suresh R Thakkar during the search proceedings and the print of the same were taken which runs into 98 pages (page No.1 to 98). During the course of post search proceedings, Suresh R Thakkar was confronted with the said whatsapp chat while recording his statement u/s.131 of the Act on 20.12.2019. Chat appearing on page No. 9 to 14 was found to have done with Ashok Damani in relation to land bearing Survey No.736/2, Makarba which was found and claimed to have purchased by the assessee and his brothers. The sale price of the land to be Rs.75,000 per square yard with the total consideration amounting to Rs.32,63,25,000/- and the documentation was to be done at Rs. 12 crores and the balance amount of Rs.20,63,25,000/- was to be paid in cash. The cash payment is made on various dates to Maheswari family and discussion of some of the cash payments are in the Whatsapp chat appearing on page 9 to 14. Thus the Ld AO inferred that:
(i) the figure '7500' recorded on the said page was a coded representation of 'Rs. 75,000/-1, being the actual rate per square yard at which the land was purchased by the assessee and his brothers; (ii) the figure '3,26,32,500' was also in coded form and actually denoted a total consideration of 'Rs. 32,63,25,000/-' paid for the acquisition of the land; (iii) the term "Jantrimujab Dastavej" signified that the land was to be registered at the Jantri rate, which in this case was Rs. 12,00,00,000/-; and
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 6 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
(iv) accordingly, the AO concluded that the land bearing Survey No. 736/2 was purchased by the assessee and his brothers at a total consideration of Rs.32,63,25,000/- at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per square yard, whereas the registration was executed for Rs.12,00,00,000/-, and the differential amount of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- was paid in cash.
3.3. The Ld AO made addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/-, being 1/3rd share of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- as assessee's share of land and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who considered the issue in detail, the submissions on record and deleted the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/= made by the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order as follows:
“… 8.11 From the discussion held above, the facts emerges as under: - i. It is undisputed fact that neither Sh. Suresh Thakkar has received any brokerage nor appellant has paid any brokerage to him. The AO has also accepted these facts as no addition of brokerage has been made in the assessment of Sh. Suresh Thakkar towards the land deal bearing survey no.340/1 and 341 situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad. Therefore, these land deal done through Sh. Suresh R. Thakkar is not found correct. ii. It is also an irrefutable fact that the seized material did not have the name of the parties, their signature, nature of transaction or details of terms and conditions of the transactions. However, in absence of such details, the AO has not conducted any independent enquiries. iii. On confronting the alleged image to Sh. Suresh Thakkar, he has stated that the lands bearing survey no 340/1 and 341 have been sold to Dhiren Ramanlal Shah whereas the actual fact is the said land was never sold to him. The land bearing no 340/1 and 341 are sold Vinod Shah, Sonal Shah, Stone Touch Infra space LLP. Additionally, in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar dated 02.12.2019 in answer to question no 6, he has referred to MOU and as per the MOU, the total sale consideration is Rs. 87,48,26,160/- however, no such MOU was
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 7 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
found from the premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar or the appellant's premises. It is also pertinent to mention here that no independent inquiries were made by the AO to verify the correctness of contents of the alleged image and truthfulness of the statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar. iv. The name of the buyer mentioned by Sh. Suresh Thakkar i.e., Sh. Dhiren Ramanlal Shah is not the actual buyer to whom the land has been sold. The AO has imposed rate of the land and others terms and conditions decided with Sh. Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (in respect of both the land) on the actual purchasers i.e. Sh. Vinod Shah, Ms. Sonal Shah, M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. v. The AO has failed to establish the link between the contents of the image with the actual transactions. If there were different buyers then the notings of each buyer would have been different and terms and conditions of it. 8.12. In addition to the above facts, it is important to mention here that the assessment orders have been passed in the case of purchasers, namely Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP in which no adverse view has been taken by the AO. In the assessments completed u/s. 153C of the Act. The said assessment orders have been passed by the very same AO, i.e., ACIT-CC. 2(3), who have passed the impugned order. The assessment orders have been passed much after the date of the assessment order in the case of the appellant. The AO while issuing show cause notice to the appellant has determined and cumulated the assessment in making addition in the hands of the appellant for the year under consideration on the ground that Sh Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP has paid on-money of Rs. 71,38,88,500/- to Shri Dhiren R. Bharwad & Others for purchasing of land bearing survey No. 340/1 and 341 However, the assessment proceedings in the case of Sh Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP were initiated on the issue of on-money payment to Shri Dhiren Bharwad & Others towards the purchase of land bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341 but completed without taking any adverse view in the case of Sh Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP in the assessment orders u/s 153C of the Act. The AO in the assessment order himself admitted the fact that Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah has not purchased the land under reference as the deal could not be materialized with Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah meaning thereby payment of onmoney has not been made by Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah. Thereafter, on the basis of information available on public domain (copy of 7/12 abstract of land bearing survey no.340/1 and 341) and statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the AO concluded that payment of on-money towards the purchase of land under reference has been made by actual purchasers i.e. Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 8 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LL.P. Based on the said statement, assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated in the case of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, however, no adverse view of purported payment of on-money was made by the same AO in these cases for the AYs under the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The AO's decision of not taking adverse view in the cases of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Shri Vinod Mangaldas Shah, and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, further establishes that the purchasers did not make any payment of on-money for the purchase of land bearing Survey No. 340/1 and 341 to Shri Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad & Others, including the appellant, who is a co-owner of the land. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the said image having some handwritten notings cannot be the basis for addition made as there is no specific evidence brought by the AO that the appellant has received the amount of Rs. 19,67,39,459/- in cash against the land under reference. The said image cannot be a basis for the conclusion reached by the AO and on the basis of said image, a presumption cannot be raised about receipt of cash of Rs.19.67 crore. The AO has not brought any corroborative material to suggest that cash amount of Rs.19.67 crore has been received by the appellant. Moreover, the AO has not conducted any further enquiry to substantiate the addition. More importantly, no adverse view has been taken in the hands of the purchasers on the said issue. 8.13 On the similar issue, jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO, (2017) 79 taxmann.com 302 (Guj) was held that …. 8.14 On the similar issue, jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Maulikumar K. Shah (2008 307 TR 137 (Guj] held that …. 8.15 In the case of CIT vs. Gian Gupta [2014] 46 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi), it was held that … 8.16 In the case of Rajvee Tractors (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 330 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), it was held that … 8.17 In the case of CIT vs. Hiraben Govindbhai Patel [2014] 44 taxmann.com 29 (Guj), it was held that …. 8.18 In the case of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka High Court in the case Dr. Syed Anwar v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 247 (Karnataka), it was held that … 8.19 In view of the above discussed facts and following the judgments supra, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/-. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 3 is allowed.”
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 9 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
4.1. Regarding the addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/- being land having Survey No. 736/2 at Makarba, Ld CIT[A] held as follows:
“… 9.5. I have carefully examined the issue, the submissions made by the appellant, and the material available on record. In the assessment order, the AO has claimed that the land bearing Survey No. 736/2 was sold at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per square yard. This claim is based on an image (page no. 66) recovered from the mobile phone of Alpesh Thakore, an employee, and on the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar recorded during the search. For the sake of reference scanned copy of the same are produced hereunder:- 9.6 However, the appellant has argued that the AO has mainly relied on the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar instead of the notings in the seized image. In his statement, Shri Thakkar mentioned that the WhatsApp chat being referred to was between him and one Ashok Damani. The AO has not explained how Ashok Damani is connected to the transaction or whether the payments mentioned in the chat are related to the notings found in Alpesh Thakore's mobile. The AO also failed to connect the WhatsApp chat with the seized image (page 66) in order to 2 prove that the figure "7500" mentioned in the note actually represents Rs. 75,000/- per square yard, leading to the total consideration of Rs. 32.63 crore for the said land. On examining the image found from Alpesh Thakore's phone, the following is noted: - a. On the left-hand side (top corner of the page) date 06/10/18 is written. Below this date, Survey No. 736/2 is written. Below this, area 'FP 4351 Sq. Yard' is also written which is multiplied with 7500 which comes to Rs 3,26,32,500/-. b. Below the said total amount of Rs.3,26,32,500/-, 1.10 - 25/10/28, 1.10- 25/1/19 and 1.06- 25/3/19 are written. Below this figure, Jantrimujab Dastavej" is written. c. On the right-hand side top corner of the page, "Deduct 930000/- of Devan Vaghela" is written. 9.7. Based on the notings recorded on the seized page referred to above, in connection with land bearing Survey No. 736/2, it is
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 10 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
inferred that the figures mentioned represent actual transaction values. The cost of the land is indicated as Rs.3,26,32,500/-, structured to be paid in three installments, with a further note stating that registration was to be executed at the Jantri rate. As the land was ultimately purchased through a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2018 for a consideration of Rs.12 crore, the seized material suggests that an additional amount of Rs. 3.26 crore was paid in cash, over and above the documented value. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of all three co-owners is restricted to Rs. 3.26 crore. Since the appellant holds a one-third share in the said property, addition of Rs. 1,08,77,500/- (being one-third of Rs. 3,26,32,500/-) is sustained in the appellant's hands and the balance addition of Rs. 5,78,97,500/- is deleted. Accordingly, ground of appeal No. 4 is partly allowed.”
Aggrieved against the appellate order the assessee is in appeal in IT[SS]A No.109/Ahd/2025 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming order passed by the AO u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The Ld. CIT ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the order and making the additions based on use of Electronic Evidence without bringing on record mandatory certificate required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act dated 16-07-2021 as the approval granted/issued under section 153D of the Act dated 13-07-2021 is invalid and bad in law and also on the ground that the same does not contain DIN. 4. The Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,77,500/- being alleged amount paid in cash towards purchase of land being land at survey no 736/2 and in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 11 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
At the outset, Ld. Counsel Shri. Vijay Metha appearing for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Recording the same, Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are dismissed as Not Pressed.
Regarding Ground No.4 namely CIT[A] sustaining the addition of Rs.1.08 Crs as against the addition made by the AO of Rs.6.87 crores [Revenue’s Ground No.2] on account of cash component paid towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. Ld. Counsel Shri. Vijay Metha fairly admitted that this is partly in favour of the assessee by the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in another co-owner of this land in IT[SS]A No. 117/Ahd/2025 vide order dated 25-02-2026 in the case of Mr. Dhiren R Bharwad. The same ratio is to be followed in this present assessee cases also being the remaining co-owners of land.
7.1. Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue could not dispute the above submission of the Assessee Counsel.
We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the decisions passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the other co-owners case in IT[SS]A No. 117/Ahd/2025 vide order dated 25-02-2026 in the case of Mr. Dhiren R Bharwad, which has up held the order passed by Ld CIT[A] by observing as follows:
“… 16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the materials and evidences brought on record. The addition of proportionate cash payment of Rs. 6,87,75,000/- was made on the basis of page No. 66 of image recovered from mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakur. In the said image, the
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 12 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
name of the assessee or any of his family member or of any of the seller(s) does not appear. The said document has been linked to the assessee only with survey No. 736/2 appearing therein, as this piece of land was purchased by the assessee and his family members. No statement of Shri Alpesh Thakur, from whose mobile this data was retrieved, was recorded in the course of search. The Revenue has also been unable to establish that the entries in this seized document was in the hand-writing of the assessee himself. Since the document was neither recovered from the assessee nor was in his own hand- writing, no addition could have been made merely on the basis of the entries appearing in this seized document, without any corroborative evidence. When the assessee was confronted with this document, he had admitted that the figures written on the page were in coded form but he was unable to explain the codes. We have carefully perused this document. So far as the area, rate and amount appearing in this document is concerned, we do not find any code. In fact, the amount written on this page is “32632500/-” which can’t be held to be in code. Only the amount noted to be paid on different dates is found appearing in code viz. “1.10”, “1.10” and “1.06”, which totals to earlier mentioned amount of Rs.3.26 crores. Further, the Revenue also did not cause any enquiry from “Deven Vaghela” whose name was appearing in this document, in order to unravel the correct nature of transaction. 17. The AO has relied upon the corroborative statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar. In the document seized from the mobile of the Shri Suresh Thakkar, only reference of plot no. 736/2 was appearing. No mention of any rate or sale consideration is found appearing in the said seized document. Though Shri Suresh Thakkar had stated that the noting at page No. 67 was in respect of purchase of land by Shri Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad, no sale price or rate is found appearing in this document. There is reference of 5 different plots of land in this document. The statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar regarding survey no. 736/2 was a bald statement, not supported with any corresponding entry regarding rate and sale consideration appearing in this seized document. Further, the AO also did not make any enquiry with the seller of the land about the actual rate and the sale consideration received by them. Thus, the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per sq. yards as taken by the AO is not backed by any supporting evidence and is based on mere statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar, whose locus standi in this transaction was never explained. The communication seized from the mobile of Shri Suresh Thakkar was not made with the assessee but with a third party namely Ashok Damani and the context of this communication was not explained. As rightly pointed out by the assessee no evidence for any on-money payment for purchase of this land was found in the course of search at the premises of the assessee or any of his family members. Neither any evidence has been brought on record by the AO that the market rate of the land purchased by the assessee was 75,000/- per
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 13 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
sq. yards. Under the circumstances, no addition for any cash payment of purchase of this land could have been made. Considering these facts, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- on account of on-money payment in purchase of land at survey No. 736/2. 18. At the same time, the assessee has not explained as to why the land agreed to be purchased at “32632500/-” was registered as per sale deed at Rs.12 crores within a period of less than three months. Neither the nature of defect in title of the land was explained nor any evidence for litigation of the land was brought on record by the assessee. Further, no communication in this respect with the owners of the land, was produced to justify the abnormal increase in the sale price. There can be minor adjustment in the sale consideration due to certain defect in the title. But the increase in sale consideration by 275% certainly required proper justification and documentary evidence. In the absence of any cogent explanation for this abnormal increase in sale consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition of on-money payment of Rs. 20,63,25,000/-, had held that the assessee had made this additional payment of Rs. 3.26 crores in cash (as recorded in the seized document page No. 66 recovered from mobile data of Shri Alpesh Thakur). According to the Ld. CIT(A) this amount was paid in cash over and above the documented value. In the absence of any cogent explanation for the abnormal increase in the sale consideration, the conclusion as drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) can’t be faulted. The entry in this seized document categorically mentions that the document would be made at jantri value, which corroborates the conclusion that the payments recorded in this document were not to be accounted for. Further, the payments recorded in this seized document were also not appearing in the sale deed. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the entries at page No. 66 were in respect of payments made in cash over and above the documented value. At the same time, only the payment made as per this document till the date of execution of sale deed, should have been considered and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) as additional payment. As rightly contended by the assessee, there was no question of any payment after the sale deed was executed. As per this document only payment of Rs. 1.10 crores on 25.10.2018 was made prior to the sale deed. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is restricted to Rs. 1.10 crores and proportionate 1/3rd addition of Rs.36,66,667/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed while the ground of the assessee is partly allowed.” 8.1. The Ld CIT[A] after considering the entire facts of the case sustained the addition of Rs.1.08 crores as against the addition of
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 14 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
Rs.6.87 crores made by the AO in the assessment order. But Co- ordinate Bench discussed in detailed manner the above issue in the case of other co-owner of the land namely Mr. Dhiren R Bharwad and held there was no question of any payment after the sale deed was executed. As per this document only payment of Rs. 1.10 crores on 25.10.2018 was made prior to the sale deed. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is restricted to Rs. 1.10 crores and proportionate 1/3rd addition of Rs.36,66,667/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed while the ground of the assessee is partly allowed. Respectfully following the same ratio of the decision in assessee’s case being other co-owner of holding 1/3rd Share in the same land, we hereby restrict the addition to Rs. 36,66,667/- and thus the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is hereby partly allowed.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A No. 109/Ahd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Revenue is in appeal in IT[SS]A No.118/Ahd/2025 relating to Asst. Year 2019-20 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/-made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash consideration (on-money) received from sale of land, ignoring the incriminating digital evidence seized during search." 2) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/-to Rs.1,08,77,500/- and deleting the balance addition of Rs.5,78,97,500/-, despite consistent and cogent evidence supporting the full amount of unaccounted cash payment". 3) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not applying the presumption under Section 292C of the
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 15 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
Income Tax Act, 1961, to the seized digital evidence, which clearly indicated a mechanism for suppressed cash payments". 4) "The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/on substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal."
10.1. Ld. CIT-DR Shri Alpesh Parmar appearing for the Revenue in support of his grounds submitted that the order passed by the assessing officer is to be sustained.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel Shri Vijay Mehta appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in another co-owner of this very same land in IT[SS]A No. 68/Ahd/2025 vide order dated 27-08-2025 in the case of Mrs. Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad for the very same asst. year 2019-20 is covered in favour of the assessee. Ld Counsel further submitted that this decision was followed in another co-owner of the same piece of land in the case of Mr. Dhiren R Bharwad in IT[SS]A No. 117/Ahd/2025 vide order dated 25-02-2026 wherein deleted the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/= in the hands of the assessee. Thus, Ld Counsel pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference and the addition is liable to be deleted.
We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book and case laws filed by the assessee. One of the co-owner of the same piece of land in Survey No.340/1 and 342, co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal [wherein JM is the Author of the Decision] in IT[SS]A No. 68/Ahd/ 2025 vide order dated 27-08-2025 in the case of Mrs.Jiviben Rambhai
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 16 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
Bharwad [mother of the assessee] for the very same asst. year 2019- 20 held as follows:
“… … 8. We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including the paper book and case laws filed by the assessee. The Ld AO based on the digital images found from the mobile phone of Suresh R Thakkar more particularly Page Nos.122 to 124 held that the assessee received on-money of Rs.12,36,70,125/- being her 1/4th share in land Survey No.341 which is reproduced at Page No.11 of the assessment order. Whereas the very same assessing officer in the case of the purchaser of land namely M/s. Stone Touch Infra Space LLP in which no adverse view has been taken by the A.O. in the assessment completed u/s.153C of the Act which was also passed by the very same Assessing Officer ACIT-CC 2(3). The AO in the assessment order himself admitted the fact that Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah has not purchased the land under reference as the deal could not be materialized with Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah meaning thereby alleged payment of on-money has not been made by Shri Dhiren R Shah. 8.1. Thereafter, on the basis of information available on public domain (copy of 7/12 abstract of land bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341) and statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the AO concluded that payment of on-money towards the purchase of land under reference has been made by actual purchasers namely Ms Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. Based on the said statement, assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were initiated in the case of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch infraspace LLP, however, no addition of purported payment of on-money was made by the same AO in these cases for the Asst. Year made under section 153C of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer is not justified in making addition on the very same mobile phone images for making addition of Rs.12.36 crores in the hands of the seller of the land. 8.2. Statement of the land broker Shri Suresh R Thakkar is considered by this Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of K. Mehta & Co. (cited supra) by observing as follows: “… 7.2. It is undisputed fact that Shri Suresh R. Thakkar is only a land–mediator and not owner of the land. Based on the statements recorded of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the above addition is made by the Assessing Officer. This digital images are not related to the assessee firm and there is no signature and there is no hand writing of the assessee in the above images. Correspondingly, the A.O. is not found any Agreement or Banakhat or any piece of evidences for payment of cash found during the course of search.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 17 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
7.3. Further Shri Suresh R. Thakkar in his statement recorded clearly submitted that he has not received his commission (Dalali) which will be at 1% on the quantum of the deal amount. Thus the Assessing Officer without any seized material but only with this piece of digital image recovered from the search premises. Merely based on the ground that the survey no. and name of Shri Mahesh Mehta reflecting in that piece of loose paper the Ld. A.O. came to the conclusion that ‘on-money’ of Rs. 2.69 crores paid by the assessee. Further the assessee was not given any opportunity of cross-examining the so called Shri Suresh R. Thakkar based on which addition was made by the A.O. It is well settled principle of law mere admission in statement without any corroborative evidence or materials cannot be the basis for making additions in the hands of the assessee. Further the Assessing Officer is totally silent about the retraction (Notarized) statement dated 11-09- 2019 made by Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, which is placed at Page Nos. 196 to 211 of the Paper Book (with the duly English translation). The relevant portion of retraction statements are as follows: “… 5. During the proceedings of search, many here and there papers which cannot be said any proper record, such papers were seized by the Income Tax officers. 6. From my mobile and other digital data also, such here and there papers which mast probably were not in my handwriting, those were collected by the Income Tax officers. 7. During the proceedings of search, I have made aware with that talk to all the officers that I am doing the work of brokerage of land and in its connection, true false proposals related to so many lands are coming. 8. I also had informed that talk that in the era of present social media, small big brokers and other people are sending false and true proposals to me on whatsapp. Such many proposals are not transferring in the true transactions and if might have done, then also not doing according to the relevant rate or terms and conditions. 9. I also have informed that talk to the Income Officers that Kachi Bana Chitthi wherein so many times, any signature, rate are not being written, in such Kachi Bana Chitthi are exchanged by the brokers, there is no its any true meaning or trueness. So many times due to legal complications and family quarrels, such deal actually being not made final and if may be final, then also, it being done at very less rate.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 18 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
So many times, where, signature of the relevant parties being made, in Banakhat or Bana chitthi also, the dealings are standing due to so many changes in the family and legal or government procedures or are being final in the insignificant value. …………………….. 23. So many here and there papers in which there may not be any survey number or any proper description, then also, by joining with some survey number, my statement was taken. As per example, some here and there papers which were received from my office which was not the part of any diary or regular record, on which, there was no date, time, description of the land, name of the party or any signature, even though also, such papers were joined with Survey No. 194 situated at Okaf, Sarkhej, Ahmedabad. I have clearly stated such that any sale deed for Sarkhej Okaf 194 was not executed and even on this date also, it is not executed, I have told forcefully that the inquiry and the here and there proposals of the so many lands are being come to me from Ahmedabad and surrounding rural area through whatsapp and it is not proper to join Kachi entry or proposal of any such land with Sarkhej Okaf survey No. 194. 24. In such manner also, one paper of rough proposal of some lands situated at Kachariya village Survey Nos. 270, 270/1, 271, 285, 283, 289 was received, for which actually there was any concern with any sale deed. 25. The details of any cheque written therein is not tallied with my book also. Suspending all these talks and the facts, joining the paper with that survey number, statement is written, therefore, the statement taken in such manner is not binding to me or any other person. 26. As per the above situation, whatsoever some promissory notes and blank cheque related to any friend obtained from my house in the search proceedings, in its reply, I had stated that true fact that I, as a friend only, these cheque which are of very old dates, those are saved, which are not approved in the bank on this date because its limitation period is completed, but as per my knowledge, the Income Tax officer have noted whatsoever words of my statement against the fact, the any liability of Income Tax to be arisen due to it, is not binding to me or any other person.” 7.4. In his retraction statement Shri Suresh R. Thakkar made it very clear in the present social media era, small big brokers and other people are sending false and true proposals to him on whatsapp. Such proposals are not transformed in the true transactions and the prices
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 19 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
are not certain. Further due to legal complications and family disputes many deals does not get through. Thus the Assessing Officer has not given any weightage to the retraction (Notarized) statement dated 11- 09-2019 made by Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. Further the Assessing Officer do not even have in possession, the so called Cancellation Deed with Smt. Tarini Johri as well as the piece of paper jottings said to be seized from the premises of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. However only the digital images are reproduced at Page Nos. 131, 140, 155 and 208 and came to the conclusion that the assessee has received ‘on- money’ payment of Rs.2,69,65,440/-, which are liable to be deleted. 7.5. Further the Assessing Officer though noted that the Sale Deed value as per Document No. 7670/2019 registered as Sale Deed on 19- 06-2019 for a value of Rs. 96,00,000/- which is as per the Jantri Value approved by the State Government. In the above circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not verified the value land by referring to the DVO before making such addition of ‘on-money’ in the hands of the assessee. Further more when the assessee sold the above property on 07-06-2021 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2.5 crores and declared is 50% share of profit as Rs. 74,16,500/- which is in the profit and loss account, the same was accepted by the very same Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 15-12-2022. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 536 (Surat-Trib.) held as follows: “…..6 We find that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 20,43,500/- as unexplained money and unexplained interest income of Rs. 4,27,237/- on the basis of image found in I-Phone of assessee by taking view that on such amount, the assessee earned interest. We find that before the Assessing Officer as well as Id. CIT(A), the assessee explained that there is no corroborative material to prove that the assessee made advance of such amount or earned interest. Neither it contained the name and signature of assessee nor it is mentioned whether this amount was received or paid. We find that the ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee held that the Assessing officer is silent as to whom these advances were made and from whom such interest was received. The Assessing Officer while making addition, simply relied on the image of lose paper (image in the mobile phone of assessee). The Assessing officer has not brought any direct evidence on record that assessee has lent this amount to any person. There is no incriminating paper found from the WhatsApp image to specify whether it is loan
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 20 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
taken or given as no name of person is mentioned on the said paper. The paper/image is not signed by assessee nor in his handwriting, thus, in absence of incriminating evidence, it cannot be held that the assessee has given the said loan out of his unexplained source. The ld. CIT(A) noted that there is no likelihood that some estimate of interest has been worked out taking a particular amount and particular rate of interest, such working does not prove that transaction of advance has been materialized unless there is further evidence to prove that such amount of loan has been taken or given on a particular date. No such evidence was found in the search. The assessee is not engaged in the business of money lending, therefore, working found on paper cannot be treated as sacrosanct evidence. On the basis of such findings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. 7. We have independently examined the facts of the case. We find that the Assessing Officer has not recorded in the assessment order whether such image/photo was received by assessee in WhatsApp image or it was sent. The source of image was not investigated by Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned whether such image was confronted to the assessee during the search action or his statement was recorded for such image. Thus, in absence of any corroborative evidence, we do not find any justification for making such addition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 SC also held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34, so as to constitute evidence with respect to transaction mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. Thus, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A) on our aforesaid additional observation.” 8.1. Respectfully following the above judicial precedent, we do not find any merit in the additions made by the Assessing Officer which are liable to be deleted. Thus the Grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.” 12.1. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/= made in the
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 21 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
hands of the assessee. Thus, the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Regarding Ground No. 2, Ld CIT[A] sustained the addition of Rs.1.08 Crs as against the addition made by the AO of Rs.5.78 crores on account of cash component paid towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. This issue is already considered in paragraphs 7 to 8.1 of this very same order in assessee’s appeal for the very same Assessment Year 2019-20 and restricted the addition to Rs.36,66,667/- and deleted the balance addition made by the AO on account of cash component paid towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. Therefore the Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Ground No.3 namely Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that WhatsApp chat retrieved during the search operation constituted admissible evidence u/s.292C of the Act. Ld CIT DR not argued this ground very seriously, but argued in support of the earlier ground. Therefore Ground No.3 is hereby dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in IT[SS]A No. 118/Ahd/2025 is hereby dismissed.
IT[SS] A Nos. 115 & 119/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2020-21
Assessee is in appeal in IT[SS]A No.115/Ahd/2025 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 22 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
The Ld CIT has erred in confirming the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 1538(1)(b) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act dated 27-07-2021 as the approval granted/issued under section 153D of the Act dated 13-07-2021 is invalid and bad in law and also on the ground that the same does not contain DIN. 3. The Ld. CIT has erred in confirming addition on account of the cash found during search action of Rs. 19,03,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A and invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or Delete all or any of the foregoing Grounds of Appeal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel Shri. Vijay Metha appearing for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 1 & 2. Recording the same, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed as Not Pressed.
Regarding Ground No.3 namely CIT[A] sustaining the addition on account of the cash found during search action of Rs.19,03,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A and invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. During the course of search at the residential premises of the assessee cash of Rs.19,03,000/- was found out of which Rs.17,00,000/- was seized.
18.1. Ld Counsel submitted that the cash book for the year under consideration along with Income Tax Return for Asst. Year 2020-21 wherein the opening balance was reflected in Schedule AL. However. during the search proceeding the assessee gave a different statement as he was under immense mental pressure & stress and he did not
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 23 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
have complete knowledge of the books of accounts as he did not maintain the books on day-to-day basis. During the course of assessment proceedings upon perusal of the books of accounts, the assessee explained the cash in hand as held by him for emergency and medical needs and submitted cash book in support of the same as follows:
Sr. Name of the assessee Cash on hand No. Rs. 1 Deepak Mevada 23,87,257 2 Namrataben Mevada (wife) 3,07,160 3 Zeel Mevada (minor daughter) 24,000 Total Cash available on hand as on 15-10-2019 27,18,417 18.2. This explanation was not accepted by the AO and made addition as unexplained money u/s 69A and invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. On appeal before CIT[A], who confirmed the addition by observing as follows:
“… … 11.2 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the appellant was specifically required to explain the source of the cash found during the course of the search. In response, the appellant furnished an explanation that was materially different from the one provided at the time of the search. Subsequently, the appellant submitted cash book in support of his claim; however, it is clearly an attempt to retrospectively justify the cash found and are therefore treated as an afterthought. It is evident that at the time of the search, the appellant failed to disclose or substantiate the source of the cash found. Further, no credible documentary evidence has been furnished to support the explanation offered during the assessment proceedings. In light of the above, the addition of Rs. 19,03,000/- on account of unexplained cash made by the Assessing Officer is found to be justified and is accordingly confirmed. Ground of appeal No. 6 is, therefore, dismissed.”
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Though the statement made during the Search proceedings
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 24 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
were materially different with that produced during the course of assessment proceedings with material evidences namely Cash book and bank statements, the same are required to be verified before making addition in the hands of the assessee, which is not done by the Lower Authorities in this case. It is humanly impossible to reconcile and explain the cash in hand during the search action without verifying books of account. Therefore, in the interest of Justice this issue is setaside to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the same and allow the cash in hand in accordance with the provisions of law by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A No. 115/Ahd/2025 is allowed for statical purpose.
Revenue is in appeal in IT[SS] A No.119/Ahd/2025 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,61,99,000/-made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash consideration received on the sale of land at Survey No.361, Makarba." 2) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,00,00,000/-made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash receipts for surrender of possession of land at Survey No.255, Ambli." 3) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the WhatsApp chats and handwritten notes retrieved from the appellant's mobile phone during the search constituted credible evidence of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.50 crores in four installments."
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 25 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
4) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that WhatsApp chat retrieved during the search operation constituted admissible evidence under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was indicative of the actual market value and unaccounted cash receipts". 5) "The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/on substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal."
Ground No.1 is addition of Rs.19,61,99,000/-made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash consideration received on the sale of land at Survey No.361, Makarba. This issue is already adjudicated by the co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in other co-owners cases and discussed in detail at Paragraphs 12 to 12.1 of this order. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/= made in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Ground Nos. 2 & 3 namely addition of Rs.50 crores made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash receipts for surrender of possession of land at Survey No.255, Ambli. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of the search, digital data was found and seized mainly WhatsApp chats (page no 1, 2, 5, 6 & 17 of digital data) were retrieved from the mobile phone of the assessee. Further, a statement of Shri Dhiren Bharwad was recorded in respect to the content of the said WhatsApp chat. On perusal of the chat, it was observed that there was a conversation between the assessee and Sanjay Patel (Builder) on page 1 & 2, between the assessee and Baka Bhai Patel on page 5 & 6 and between the assessee and Hari Bhai Patel on page 17.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 26 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
In the said chat, Sanjay Patel and Baka Bhai Patel have sent an image of a hand written note to the assessee. Moreover, in the chat with Hari Bhai Patel, the assessee had a conversation about recovery of consideration from Sanjay Patel. The hand written note is in Gujarati which consists of various dates along with amounts. The note pertains to the installments to be received by the assessee to surrender the possession of land bearing block no. 255 at Ambali. The land belongs to Sanjay Patel and the assessee was in adverse possession of the said land. The Ld. AO as per the hand written note and the WhatsApp chat decoded that each installment to be received by the assessee for surrendering the possession of the land was Rs.12.50 crores and there were 4 installments and hence, concluded that Rs. 50 crores (12.50 crores X 4) were received in cash for releasing the possession. Hence, the Ld. AO held that the cash component was not offered as income by the assessee and accordingly added the said amount as undisclosed income in the assessment order.
23.1. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO on account of alleged receipt of Rs. 50 crores in cash were entirely based on assumptions and lacked any corroborative evidence. The assessee clarified that the possession of the land was surrendered to Sanjay Patel for a total consideration of Rs.15 lakhs only, payable in four installments, as agreed orally and later documented in a Possession Agreement dated 12.10.2019. This agreement was entered after Sanjay Patel failed to pay the first two installments prompting the parties to record the terms in writing. The assessee emphasized that the seized document relied upon by the AO was merely an image of a photocopy of a handwritten paper found on
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 27 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
the assessee’s mobile and did not mention any cash receipts in crores. Further, the WhatsApp message interpreted by the AO was misread, as the "12.50" figure referred to the total of three installments and not a single installment, and the message was received, not sent, by the assessee, clearly prepared by a third party. Thus the assessee argued that the AO's interpretation of notings such as "7/50" and "3/00" as representing crores was imaginary and unsupported by any evidence. The AO also failed to provide any previous notings relied upon for such inference and did not examine or cross-verify Sanjay Patel, despite the Affidavit filed by him affirming the facts. Further the assessee pointed out that Sanjay Patel had sold the said land, along with another plot, for Rs.13.98 crore, making it implausible that Rs. 50 crore was paid merely for surrender of possession by someone with no ownership rights. The impugned land's circle-rate value as per government records was only around Rs.8.26 crore, further disproving the AO's assumption. As there was no cost of acquisition or ownership in the assessee’s hands, and the transaction involved only possession rights, the same was not taxable. In support, the assessee relied on various judicial precedents, including the ITAT Surat decision in ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani [2024] 161 taxmann.com 536, reinforcing that addition cannot be made based on uncorroborated documents and presumptions. Ld CIT[A] considered the submissions and deleted the addition by observing as follows:
“… 10.4 On perusal of the assessment order and submission furnished by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant was not the legal owner of the land in question, and only had informal possession thereof. The possession was relinquished in favour of Mr. Sanjay Patel vide a Possession Agreement dated 12.10.2019, entered into after mutual discussions and partial payment of the agreed consideration. The appellant has contended that this agreement is a document on record signed by both parties, specifying that the total
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 28 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
consideration for surrendering possession was Rs. 15,00,000/-, payable in four installments. It was executed prior to the date of search (15.10.2019) and has not been disputed or found to be non-genuine by the Assessing Officer. It is also pertinent to mention here that since the appellant did not hold any title or ownership rights in the said land, he could not have transferred ownership or received a premium consideration like Rs. 50 crores. The appellant had possessory interest which he agreed to surrender. A person who holds no legal title or registered ownership in a property is not in a position to command such huge sum for surrender of possession. 10.5 The AO solely relied upon certain notings ("7/50" and "3/00") found on pages 2 and 6 of seized material and a WhatsApp chat on page 17. These were decoded by the AO as referring to crores of rupees purportedly received in cash by the appellant. However, no explanation or evidentiary support has been provided by the AO to show that these figures indeed represent amounts in crores. None of the parties to the cash transaction has admitted to such figures. The WhatsApp chat clearly refers to installment amounts, with the message stating, "total of three installments would come to 12.50, out of which 2 has been received." The decoding of the figures in the message in crores by the AO is without any evidence Moreover, the handwritten note that contains the figures "7/50" and "3/00" was not written by the appellant or any of his associates. Moreover, the AO has not conducted any independent inquiry to verify the content of it. In such circumstances, the note cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the appellant, especially when it is established that the appellant was merely the recipient of the message and not the person who prepared it. 10.6 The appellant has also argued that no statement was recorded from Mr. Sanjay Patel post-search to verify the AO's conclusion. No incriminating material have been produced by the AO to corroborate the addition. It is further contended that amount of Rs. 50 crore was paid in cash merely to acquire possession is grossly inconsistent with the value of the land as the land in question, along with another adjacent parcel, was sold by Mr. Sanjay Patel for Rs. 13.98 crore, through a registered deed dated 27.05.2019. Further, the value of the land as per the 7/12 record was Rs. 10,750 per sq. metre, making the total land value approximately Rs. 8.26 crore. To suggest that an amount of Rs. 50 crore was paid for the surrender of possession when the registered value of the land and its fair market price were significantly lower is wholly implausible and unsupported. The Assessing Officer has failed to provide any justification as to why such cash payment, amounting to more than five times the actual market value, would be paid for bare possession, especially in a case where the appellant did not hold legal title and ownership vested with a third party. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, and independent inquiry, the addition of Rs.50 crores is therefore devoid of merits and cannot be sustained.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 29 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
10.7 On the similar issue, the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT Surat in the case of ACIТ vs Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani [2024] 161 taxmann.com 536 (Surat Trib.) has held as under :- " Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Purchase of land) - Assessment year - 2020-21- Assessing Officer made addition on basis of a paper found and seized from office premises of assessee allegedly showing some transaction of land - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) found that such paper was not in handwriting of assessee or his family members and there was no direct evidence found or brought on record that assessee had ever purchased or sold any land - Commissioner (Appeals) held that such loose paper was nothing but a dump document which could not be relied upon solely for making huge addition - Whether since Assessing Officer had neither brought any corroborative evidence nor further investigated fact nor referred any corroborative evidence if collected during search action by Investigation Wing, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting addition Held, yes (Para 27) (In favour of assessee)"
10.8 In view of the above discussed facts and respectfully following the decision (supra), addition of Rs.50 crores made by the AO is deleted. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 5 is allowed.”
Ld. CIT-DR Shri Alpesh Parmar appearing for the Revenue in support of his ground submitted that Ld CIT[A] erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer and the addition of Rs.50 crores is to be sustained. Per contra, Ld. Counsel Shri Vijay Mehta appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and requested to uphold the same.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Ld AO has not justified in his conclusion that the figures in the seized data are in “crores”. The AO also failed to provide any previous noting relied upon for such inference the notings are in “crores” and did not examine or cross-verify Sanjay Patel, despite the Affidavit filed by him affirming the facts. Further the assessee pointed
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 30 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
out that Sanjay Patel had sold the said land, along with another plot, for Rs.13.98 crores, making it implausible that Rs. 50 crore was paid merely for surrender of possession by a third person without even ownership rights, whereas the impugned land's circle-rate value as per government record was only around Rs.8.26 crores. This fact disproving the AO's assumption of value at Rs.50 Crores. Ld CIT[A] considered all these issues in detail and deleted the addition of Rs.50 crores. Since the Ld AO had neither brought any corroborative evidence nor further investigated the correct fact or referred any corroborative evidence if collected during search action by Investigation Wing. Thus, Revenue could not place on record any contrary evidence before us, therefore the findings arrived by Ld CIT[A] does not require any interference and the Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Ground No.4 namely Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that WhatsApp chat retrieved during the search operation constituted admissible evidence u/s.292C of the Act. Ld CIT DR not argued this ground very seriously but in support of the earlier ground. Therefore Ground No.4 is hereby dismissed. 27. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 119/Ahd/2025 is hereby dismissed.
IT[SS]A Nos. 110 & 120/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2019-20 in the case of Anil R Mevada
Assessee is in appeal in IT[SS] A No.110/Ahd/2025 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 31 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming order passed by the AO u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The Ld. CIT ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the order and making the additions based on use of Electronic Evidence without bringing on record mandatory certificate required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act dated 16-07-2021 as the approval granted/issued under section 153D of the Act dated 13-07-2021 is invalid and bad in law and also on the ground that the same does not contain DIN. 4. The Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,08,77,500/- being alleged amount paid in cash towards purchase of land being land at survey no 736/2 and in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel Shri. Vijay Metha appearing for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Recording the same, Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are dismissed as Not Pressed.
Regarding Ground No. 4, Ld CIT[A] sustained the addition of Rs.1.08 Crs as against the addition made by the AO of Rs.5.78 crores on account of cash component paid towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. This issue is already considered in paragraphs 7 to 8.1 of this very same order in the case of Deepak R Mevada in IT[SS]A no.109/Ahd/2025 wherein the addition is restricted to Rs.36,66,667/- being the cash paid before registration of the document towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. The assessee Anil R Mevada being another co-owner of
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 32 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
holding 1/3rd Share in the same land, the same ratio is applicable to this case thereby the Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee is partly allowed.
30.1. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A No. 109/Ahd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Revenue is in appeal in IT[SS] A No.120/Ahd/2025 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:]
1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/- made on account of undisclosed cash consideration received on sale of land, ignoring the incriminating digital evidence (images and statements) found during the search from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh Thakkar, a key broker in the transaction." 2) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,50,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed cash capital contribution in the partnership firm, despite the presence of incriminating Whatsapp chats and decoded entries retrieved from the mobile of a key employee." 3) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/-to Rs.1,08,77,500/- and deleting the balance of Rs.5,78,97,500/-, ignoring the full force of decoded entries, Whatsapp chats, and statements which clearly indicated a much larger cash component in the land purchase". 4) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the presumption of truth under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which applies to documents found during a search, and wrongly treated the seized evidence as 'dumb documents' or uncorroborated". 5) "The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/on substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal."
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 33 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
Ground No.1 is addition of Rs. 19,61,99,000/-made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash consideration received on the sale of land at Survey No.361, Makarba. This issue is already adjudicated by the co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in other co-owners cases and discussed in detail at Paragraphs 12 to 12.1 of this order. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/= made in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Ground Nos. 2 namely addition of Rs.16,50,00,000/-made on account of undisclosed cash capital contribution in the Partnership firm M/s Safaliya Infralink LLP in which the assessee is a Partner. During the search action was carried out at the office premises of Dharnidhar Developers, wherein the assessee is a Partner, digital data was found and seized. Some digital data, mainly a WhatsApp chat (page no 140) was retrieved from the mobile of an employee i.e. Sh. Chirag Kheradia. The WhatsApp chat was made with contact named as "Safalya Infra". On perusal of the chat, it is seen that it contains certain figures with dates. The figures appearing the WhatsApp chat are presented are as under: 27/09-300 28/09-100 12/12-350 13/12-200 27/12-200 28/12-400 03/01-100 T 0.2
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 34 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
33.1. The statement of Shri Chirag Kheradia was recorded in respect to the content of the said WhatsApp chat wherein he stated that the name of person which name is saved as "Safalya Infra" was of Dhruvinbhai Patel. He is site Supervisor of Safalya Vertis Project and the relative of Yogeshbhai Manibhai Patel, Partner of Safalya Infralink LLP. He further stated that the amounts in coded form against respective dates and the same could be in lakhs or crores. The cash advances were made by Deepak R Mevada to Dhruvin Patel and this information was told to him by Mr. Deepak R Mevada but he was not aware of the actual amount of the figures mentioned in the chat. He also stated that page no 1 of the file labeled as Shafalya Infralink LLP (Annexure BS-5) contained handwritten notings of 22.50 which was actually 22.50 crores paid by the assessee to Shafalaya Infralink LLP in the month of April, 2019. This is matching with the entry in the passbook of account No. 204020110000562 held in Bank of India by Anil R Mevada. The AO observed that the assessee was a partner in Shafalya Infralink LLP having 20% profit sharing ratio and hence, made the addition amounting to Rs. 16.50 crores on the basis that the appellant has introduced capital in the form of cash in his Partnership firm based on the impugned chat and the same is in crores.
Aggrieved against the addition the assessee was in appeal before CIT[A] who deleted the addition by passing a speaking order after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case as follows:
“… 10.4. I have carefully perused the submission furnished by the appellant and assessment order passed by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that seized material being relied upon is WhatsApp chat retrieved from the mobile of Chirag Kheradia. The WhatsApp chat was
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 35 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
between him and Dhruvinbhai Patel. No reasoning has been provided for such decoding, and no corroborative material has been placed on record. This is contrary to settled law that assessments cannot be made on suspicion, conjecture or surmise. Seized material being relied upon i.e. the WhatsApp chat lacks year of transaction, nature of transaction, mention of "Rs." or cash payments, confirmation of any transaction having taken place. Further, no such chat or material was found from the mobile phones of Anil Mevada or Deepak Mevada key individuals to be involved. In absence of such cognitive details the whatsapp chat cannot be relied upon for making such huge addition when there is also no corroborative material to establish that the appellant has infused such huge cash in the firm. Mr. Chirag Kheradia himself was unsure whether figures were in lakhs or crores and disclaimed any direct knowledge of any cash payments. He specifically stated only Mr. Deepak Mevada would know the facts, thereby further distancing himself. Further, the addition made by the AO, construing numerical WhatsApp messages eg "300" as Rs. 3 crores, is without any basis and lacks any supporting evidence. The appellant has also provided copy of order u/s 148A(d) of the Act in the case of the other partners namely Safalaya Infra LLP, Arista Buildwell LLP, Sanwaria Buildspace LLP, Aaron Buildspace LLP and also in the case of partnership firm Safalaya Infralink LLP. On perusal of said orders u/s 148A(d) of the Act, it is observed that the re-assessment proceedings had been dropped which was reopened based on statement of Sh. Chirag Kheradia and evidence found from his mobile, by the same AO i.e. Central Circle - 2(3). It was concluded that no income had escaped assessment. The AO itself observed in the case of Safalaya Infralink LLP as under: No clarity in WhatsApp messages: Shri Chirag Kheradia even though accepted that said WhatsApp chat is between Dhruvin Patel and him but neither the said WhatsApp chat nor Shri Chirag Kheradia is clear in as much as the correct quantum of cash transaction concerned. However, the figure noted in the said WhatsApp chat has been construed by the department to be running into crores without giving any reasons/basis in this regard. No basis for assuming figures represent crores: The statement of Mr. Chirag Kheradiya was also not conclusive to arrive that figure mentioned in the chat was in crores. It is believed that the department has considered said figures in crores on the basis of jottings "22.5" noted in last cover page of folder named as "Safalya Infralink LLP" wherein the "22.5" is matched with banking transaction of Rs. 22.5 crore. However, when noting of "22.5" is decoded as Rs. 22.5 Crore, then the basis of decoding the figures mentioned in whatsapp chat of "300" to Rs. 3 Crores is not corroborated. No evidence linking chats to capital contribution or cash payment: As such, there is nothing on record to corroborate the basis
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 36 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
of decoding made by the AO. There is nothing on record to evidence that the figures noted in the WhatsApp chat represent the capital introduction in Safalya Infralink LLP in cash. There is no corroborative evidence to link the receipt of Rs. 16.50 Crores in cash by Deepak Mevada to Dhruvin Patel against partnership contribution of Anil Mevada partner of Shltilya lnfralink LLP. 10.5. In view of the above discussed facts, Sh. Chirag Kheradia has given contradictory statement wherein in the statement of Mr. Chirag Kheradia dated 15.10.2019, he has stated that the figures mentioned could be in lakhs or crores, however, he was unsure of the same. Moreover, he also stated that he was unaware of the exact cash payment and only Mr. Deepak Mevada can say anything about it. In his statement, there was no mention of cash given to Safalaya Infralink LLP by the appellant. Therefore, the statement of Sh. Chirag Kheradia lacks reliability and cannot be the sole basis of addition in absence of corroborative material. 10.6 In view of the discussion held herein above, addition made by the AO of Rs.16.50 crores is not sustainable hence, deleted. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No.5 & 6 are allowed.”
Heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Ld AO has not justified in his conclusion that the figures in the seized data are in “crores”. The AO also failed to provide any evidence on record that the figures noted in the WhatsApp chat represent the capital introduction in Safalya Infralink LLP in cash by the assessee. There is no corroborative evidence to link the receipt of Rs.16.50 crores in cash by Deepak R Mevada to Dhruvin Patel against partnership contribution of Anil Mevada Partner of Safalya lnfralink LLP. The Revenue could not dispute the dropping of reassessment proceedings by passing orders u/s.148A[d] of the Act in the case of the other Partners namely M/s.Arista Buildwell LLP, M/s. Sanwaria Build space LLP, M/s. Aaron Build space LLP and also in the case of Partnership firm M/s. Safalaya Infralink LLP.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 37 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
35.1. Further the Ld CIT[A] reproduced the findings of the very same Ld AO’s observation in three headings namely “No clarity in WhatsApp messages’, “No basis for assuming figures represent crores” and “No evidence linking chats to capital contribution or cash payment” [which are already reproduced in the CIT[A] order and extracted herein above] hence not repeated here again. On perusal of said orders u/s.148A(d) of the Act, it is observed that the re-assessment proceedings had been dropped which was reopened based on statement of Sh. Chirag Kheradia and evidence found from his mobile, by the same AO i.e. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3). It was concluded that no income had escaped assessment. Thus, it is well settled principle of law mere admission in statement without any corroborative evidence or materials cannot be the basis for making additions in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the findings arrived by the Ld CIT[A] deleting the addition of Rs.16.5 crores made on account of undisclosed cash/ capital contribution in the Partnership firm, does not require any interference and the Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Regarding Ground No.3, Ld CIT[A] sustained the addition of Rs.1.08 Crs as against the addition made by the AO of Rs.6.87 crores on account of cash component paid towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. This issue is already considered in paragraphs 7 to 8.1 of this very same order in IT[SS]A No.109/Ahd/ 2025 in the case of Mr. Deepak R Mevada and restricted to addition to Rs.36,66,667/- on account of cash component paid towards purchase of land bearing survey no.736/2 at Makarba. The assessee herein being another co-owner, the same ratio is applicable in this case also.
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 38 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT
Thereby the Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Ground No.4 namely Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that WhatsApp chat retrieved during the search operation constituted admissible evidence u/s.292C of the Act. Ld CIT DR not argued this ground very seriously but in support of the earlier ground. Therefore Ground No.4 is hereby dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in IT[SS]A No. 120/Ahd/2025 is hereby dismissed.
In the combined result appeals filed by the assessee’s in IT[SS]A nos. 109, 115 & 110/Ahd/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Appeals filed by the Revenue in IT[SS]A nos.118, 119 & 120/Ahd/2025 are Dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26-03-2026
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 26/03/2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A)
I.T.(SS)A No. 109 & 115/Ahd/2025 & 4 Ors. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 39 Deepak Rambhai Mevada Vs. ACIT 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद
More judgments on Section 153A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shanmugham Thiagarajan, ChennaiITA 2576/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
