ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DHIRAJ SHIVKUMAR GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

We will first take up the appeals filed by the Revenue and Shri Shivkumar Lachmandas Gogia for the A.Y. 2018-19 in IT(SS)A No. 58/Ahd/2025 and IT(SS)A No. 49/Ahd/2025 respectively.

The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of “Land Broker and Financer” group on 15.10.2019. The search operation covered the business and residential

Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.03.2025 and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Now, both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before us. We have extensively heard Sh. Dhinal Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee as well as Sh. R P Rastogi, Ld. CIT-DR in respect of all the appeals. We will first take up the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y.2018-19.

The grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are as under:

The ground No. 1 to 3 taken by the Revenue pertain to addition of Rs.53,91,08,899/- on account of suppression of sales by way of under-invoicing. In the course of search at the office premises of M/s. Shivalik Fashions Pvt. Ltd. certain documents and digital data were found and seized. The seized documents Annexure A/2 to A/6 were loose papers files containing manual order forms, "order estimates," and corresponding tax invoices. A comparison revealed significant differences between the value of the order estimate and the final tax invoice, thus showing under invoicing. These documents were for a limited period from 1st October, 2019 to 14th October, 2019 only. Further, digital Whatsapp chats from mobile phone were seized with message mentioning “60:40 ratio.” From the analysis of the documents and the data, the AO had concluded that there was a difference in actual total sales and the sales recorded in the books of accounts and that under-invoicing of sales was done in the ratio of 60% by cheque and 40% in cash. Shri Mayur R Ramchandwani, an employee, in his statement recorded on 15-16.10.2019 had explained that the difference in the sale bills and the order estimates was received in cash which was not recorded in the books of account. The assessee was also confronted with these documents and he had admitted that the cash difference was not recorded in the books of accounts. Based on these materials and statements, the AO had concluded

Sh. R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the addition on account of under-invoicing of sales was based on the statement of Shri Mayur R. Ramchanwani, sales-cum-billing clerk, a long-serving employee of the assessee group, who was associated with the business for nearly eighteen years, and whose statement was recorded under section 131 during the post-search investigation. The Ld. CIT-DR emphasized that Shri Mayur, in his deposition had categorically admitted that the assessee was habitually preparing two parallel estimates for orders—one for internal records reflecting actual sale value and another suppressed version for the customer, which was subsequently used for billing purposes. That after settlement of payments, the original estimates showing the actual sales values were systematically destroyed by the accounts department as a matter of regular business practice. The Ld. CIT-DR contended that the very destruction of these documents prevented their seizure during the search and that this practice itself demonstrated the deliberate nature of concealment. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that in

The Ld. AR, on the other hand, contended that the additions were made in unabated assessment years based on material that belonged to a different assessee (M/s Shivali Fashions) and a different assessment year (A.Y. 2020-21). There was no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee for the year under consideration. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC), which holds that material for one year cannot be used for other years without separate incriminating material for the relevant year. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The AO based his addition on extrapolation of the pattern of under-invoicing observed in a few instances of seized documents and digital records of a third party, extending the same to the entire turnover and across multiple years, without conducting any third-party verifications or establishing a consistent pattern of suppressed income across all transactions. The AO’s extrapolation of under-invoicing in the case of the assessee is found to be arbitrary and devoid of evidentiary backing. The Assessing Officer had adopted a broad-brush approach by extrapolating instances of under-invoicing found in a limited set of seized documents of third party. We find considerable force in the assessee’s contention that in the absence of any evidence to support continuity, pattern, or generalization in the case of the assessee, the extrapolation of undisclosed income based on assumed ratios is impermissible. It is trite law that additions cannot be made merely on assumptions or conjectures, and where the seized documents provide exact quantification, such document-linked estimation alone can be the legal basis for addition. The Departmental Representative has relied upon the statements of the assessee and an employee (Mayur Ramchandani), recorded under section 131 post search. However, there was no corroborative reference demonstrating that such statements were matched with any seized material in the case of the assessee. A statement without corroboration from seized

An identical issue was involved in the case of Shivkumar Gogia decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in IT(SS)A/125/Ahd/2024 dated 28.11.2025. The findings given in that case are found to be a as under: 27.1. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties. In these set of appeals, the Assessing Officer made substantial additions by alleging under-invoicing of sales. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO extrapolated a supposed modus operandi which he believed was unearthed during the search of a different entity, namely M/s Shivali Fashions, and that too for a different assessment year - A.Y. 2020-21. This supposed modus operandi was then blindly applied to the present assessees for various unabated assessment years. The law does not sanction such a course of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) has held that material relating to one assessment year cannot be used to make additions in other assessment years without there being corresponding incriminating material found for those specific years. By the same logic, material found from the premises of one assessee cannot be used against another assessee without an independent basis. The action of the AO is thus legally flawed on two counts: firstly, for making additions in unabated years without any incriminating material found in the assessees’ cases, and secondly, for extrapolating findings from one entity and for a different assessment year to another entity and for a different assessment year. This action of the AO is jurisdictionally flawed and is unsustainable the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted these additions, and we find no reason to interfere with the said findings. The Revenue's appeals on this issue are consequently dismissed. 27.2. Since the facts and issue involved are identical in all the appeals as given in the chart above, therefore our findings given above will mutatis mutandis apply to all the aforementioned appeals.

The facts involved in the present case are identical and the decision of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A/125/Ahd/2024 is applicable

Ground No. 4 and 5 pertain to addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- on account of undisclosed investment in shop GF-03 in Stellar Project. In the course of search, a copy of distribution deed of land bearing Survey No. 43/4/1 situated at Bodakdev, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad entered into between Sh. Ashokbhai Krishnagiri (1st Party) and Sh. Kishore Krishnagiri & Shri Anoop Krishnagiri (2nd party) was found. Shri Shivkumar Lachmandas Gogia in his statement recorded on 24.01.2020 had admitted that he, with other family members had purchased 6 shops viz. GF-3 and GF-7 on the Ground floor, shop no. 103 and 104 on the First Floor and shop No. 209 and 210 on the Second Floor in the commercial project Stellar which was developed by M/s. DK properties. According to AO, Bodakdev was a fast-growing commercial area and the assessee had shown lesser value in the purchase deed as compared to the market rate. The AO referred to Whatsapp chat dated 13.08.2018 found from the mobile phone of one Shri Vijay Kumar Kalumal Manghrani in a separate search action, wherein the rate for the shop in the same project was quoted at Rs. 18,000/- to 20,000/- by one broker namely Shri Chirag. On the basis of the Whatsapp chat of the third party, the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee would have purchased the

The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO was justified in relying on a third-party WhatsApp chat indicating higher market rate. The Ld. AR, however, contended that the addition in an unabated year based on an uncorroborated, third-party chat was illegal. He further submitted that this issue was covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sh. Dhiraj Gogia in IT(SS)A/117/Ahd/2024 dated 28.11.2025.

We have considered the rival submissions. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- in the case of the assessee alleging payment of on-money for the purchase of Shop No. GF-03 in the "Stellar" project. The basis of this addition was WhatsApp chat, dated 13.08.2018, found from the mobile phone of a third party, Shri Vijay Kumar Manghrani unconnected with the assessee. This chat, with a broker named Shri Chirag, quoted a rate of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for a shop in the same project. The AO ignored the assessee's submissions that the assessee had purchased the shop

The facts involved in this case are identical and the decision of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A/117/Ahd/2024 dated 28.11.2025 is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case as well. Accordingly, the

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. \ 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in making the addition in order passed u/s 153A rw.s 143(3) of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. 4 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed violating the mandatory provisions of section 153D of the Act. (ii) That the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without application of mind. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,18,49,684/- made by the AO alleging that assessee has made undisclosed investment towards purchase of shops under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations along with the evidences brought on record by the assessee to justify that no such shops were purchased by the assessee. (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that no corroborative evidence has been brought on record by the AO in support of his allegation that assessee has purchased these shops. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition

The Ground No. 1 to 3 taken by the assessee are general. Ground No.-4 was not pressed by the Ld. AR in the course of hearing. Hence, the Ground Nos. 1 to 4, as taken by the assessee, are dismissed. Ground No.-5: Unaccounted investment in 6 shops

In the course of search, image of 3 diaries were found and seized from Lamborghini mobile of the assessee which contained booking details of six shops viz. GF-04, FF-04, GF-05, FF-05, GF-06 and FF-06 along with rate and token amount. In the course of statement recorded during the search, the assessee was confronted with these evidences wherein he had confirmed that the details recorded in page no. 23-28 were in respect of booking of shops with

Shri Dhinal Shah, the Ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found in the course of search which could suggest any unexplained investment in the six shops by the assessee. He explained that the noting in the mobile images were only rough jottings and no details of the property was appearing therein. He submitted that the statement of the assess was not considered in right perspective by the AO. The assessee had categorically stated that he had taken photo of the diaries that was brought to him by some broker and had never admitted that the properties mentioned in the seized documents were acquired by him. The evidence for purchase of the six shops appearing in the documents was nowhere appearing in any of the seized documents. Further that the assessee was not allowed any opportunity to cross- examine Shri Devendra N Patel, whose signature was appearing in the documents/digital diaries. The Ld. AR further submitted that the

Per Contra, Sh. R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the lower authorities. He submitted that the incriminating evidence in the present case was found from the mobile of the assessee himself. Further the assessee had duly explained the nature of transactions appearing in the seized documents in the course of his statement. The Ld. CIT-DR contended that if the transactions did not belong to him, he could not have explained the nature of entries in such detail as explained by him in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 25.01.2020. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

We have considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.5,18,49,684/- on the basis of images (in page number 23-28) extracted from the mobile phone of the assessee, which are reproduced in the assessment order. The only basis of the addition is found to be the explanation given by the assessee in the course of his statement recorded under section 131

The Revenue was not correct in relying on only part of the statement explaining the nature of transactions in these documents and ignoring the categorical denial of the assessee in the statement that no such transactions were made by him. The Revenue had established that the signature appearing in these documents was of one Shri Devendra N Patel. When confronted with this fact, the assessee had requested the AO to summon Shri Devendra N Patel and inquire from him about the Scheme and the ownership of the six shops. However, no further inquiry was made by the AO in this regard and the assessee’s request to cross-examine Shri Devendra N Patel was also not acted upon. In order to make the addition, the Revenue was required to establish that the assessee was owner of the six shops as mentioned in these seized documents. No evidence has been brought on record to establish that the assessee was owning these shops. In the absence of any corroborative evidence for ownership of six shops by the assessee, the addition as made by the

The Ground Nos. 6 to 10 taken by the assessee are only subsidiary grounds and were not pressed, hence dismissed.

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

These two appeals are filed by the assessee and Revenue respectively and pertain to A.Y. 2019-20. The grounds taken in the two appeals are as under: IT (SS). A. No. 50/Ahd/2025 (Assessee) 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in making the addition in order passed u/s 153A rw.s 143(3) of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,18,49,684/- made by the AO alleging that assessee has made undisclosed investment towards purchase of shops under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made without conducting any independent enquiry under section 133(6)/131 of the Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made relying upon the document which has no bearing with the assessee.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that AO has erred in drawing adverse inference against the assessee by misinterpreting the statement recorded during the course of search

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid addition despite the same has been made by indulging in surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid addition made by the AO using the

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal IT (SS). A. No. 66/Ahd/2025 (Revenue) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,97,13.206/-made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unaccounted business income, despite the addition being based on incriminating documents (Annexure A/2) seized during the course of search and corroborated by statements recorded under Section 131 of the Act, which established the existence of unaccounted sales.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no incriminating material pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 was found during the search, while failing to appreciate the categorical admissions made by the assessee as well as corroborative evidence indicating under-invoicing and receipt of cash from customers.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,62.01,400/- made under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the ground that the real estate transaction in question allegedly did not materialize, ignoring substantial digital evidence and statements evidencing negotiations and part- payment in cash.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disregarding the digital evidence retrieved from the mobile device labelled "Lamborghini Mobile and the assessee's own admissions with respect to coded entries and cash transactions, which substantiate the AO's finding of unaccounted investment

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 8.53.84.375/- made under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act, by dismissing the evidentiary value of a WhatsApp message, which was a relevant piece of digital communication reflecting prevailing market rates and corroborating the AO's inference of unaccounted consideration.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that circumstantial evidence such as digital communications contemporaneous with the transaction, conduct of the assessee, and corroborative statements which forms a valid

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting Rs.7,38,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 10,38,00,000/- made under Section 69 of the Act on account of unaccounted investment in the Ghantakarna Mall project, despite acknowledging the cash payment of Rs.3 crore and the existence of seized documents reflecting a unified and composite transaction.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the specific and detailed notings in the seized records concerning shop numbers, area, per square foot rate, and total value which is clearly indicative of finalized negotiations and financial commitment, and not merely exploratory proposals

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon an uncorroborated affidavit of a broker, devoid of any supporting documentary or financial evidence, while failing to appreciate its self-serving nature and lack of evidentiary value

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in selectively accepting the genuineness of a portion of the transaction amounting to Rs.3 crore, while arbitrarily deleting the balance of Rs.7.38 crore, despite both amounts forming an inseparable part of the same composite, contemporaneously documented transaction.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disregarding a body of compelling evidences including seized documents, sworn statements, digital records, and prevailing market data, which collectively and cogently support the AO's additions under Sections 69 and 115BBE of the Act.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

In the course of search certain mobile images were found from the assessee’s mobile on the basis which addition of Rs.10.38 crores was made on account of unaccounted investment in Ghantakaran Mall. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee explained that the assessee had booked 17 shops in Ghantakaran Mall and payment of Rs. 1 lakh by cheque for each shop was made by the assessee and his different family members. The mobile images referred to the name of one Dilipbhai on the basis of which the assessee had given the statement that he had booked these shops along with Sh. Dilip Talreja and brokerage of Rs.6.20 lakhs was given to the broker Shri Karankumar D Khamani. However, no corroborative evidence of payment of any cash in these transactions was found in the course of search. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee had subsequently cancelled these bookings and received the amount of cheque after the search in majority of the cases. He submitted that addition for unexplained investment on account of on-money of Rs.10.38 crores paid for bookings of these shops was made on mere presumption and without any corroborative evidence. The Ld. A.R submitted that the AO had twisted the statement of the assessee regarding the entry of Rs.6.20 lakhs by the assessee, which was taken as Rs.6.20 crores by the AO without any corroborative evidence. He further submitted that both Shri Dilip Talreja and the broker, had denied of having any such transaction. According the Ld. A.R, in the absence of any corroborative evidence no addition on account of unexplained investment in shops in Ghantakaran Mall was called for.

Per contra, Sh. R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR explained that the seized document page no. 18 and page no. 19 had notings of 15 shops at Ghantakarna Mall along with details of area of shop and the rate. On page no. 18 there was noting of 7 shops for Rs. 4,79,12,100/- , while page no. 19 had noting of 8 shops for Rs. 5,59,04,000/-. Thus, the total investments in 15 shops as per seized documents was Rs.10,38,16,100/- which was not recorded in the books of accounts. The Ld. CIT-DR explained that the assessee had confirmed the details recorded in page no. 18 and 19 in respect of bookings of 15 shops at Ghantakaran Mall for an amount of Rs. 10.38 crores in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 25.01.2020. It was explained that these shops were booked along with one Sh. Dilipbhai Talreja and brokerage payment of Rs. 6.20 lakh was made to Karanbhai. It was further explained that brokerage of Rs. 3.20 lakh was paid by Shri Dilipbhai Talreja while the assessee had paid brokerage of Rs.3 lakh only. It was further submitted that the assessee had booked 17 shops at Ghantakarna Mall in his name and in the name of his family members by paying Rs. 1 lakh each totaling Rs. 17 lakhs, which was duly recorded in the books of accounts. The contention of the assessee was that subsequently, Sh. Dilip Talreja had opted out of the proposal of the bookings. Therefore, 15 shops booked jointly with Sh. Dilip talreja was cancelled and the brokerage amount of Rs. 6.20 lakhs paid to Shri Karan Kumar Khinmani was also returned back. Thereafter, the assessee had booked 17 shops on his own by making cheque payment of Rs. 1 lakh for each shop as advance. The Ld. CIT- DR submitted that the AO had decoded the figure of “6.20” appearing

It is thus found that the assessee had admitted having made brokerage payment of Rs. 6.20 lakhs to Karanbhai towards the transaction for booking of 17 shops. The amount of brokerage paid by the assessee was Rs. 3 lakhs and the balance amount of Rs. 3.20

Another evidence for investment in Ghantakaran Mall shops was found at the office premises of the assessee at page No. 129 of Annexure A-7 along with photocopy of cheque issued for Rs. 1 lakh each to Dwarkesh Infrastructure. These documents were explained by the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, on 15- 17.10.2019 as under:

It is found that the evidences found in the course of the search were not considered by the AO in right perspective. The AO had made the addition of Rs. 10.38 crores on the basis of page No. 18 and 19 and ignoring the other evidences. The assessee had categorically

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Department’s appeal Ground No. 1 and 2: Under-invoicing of sales:

The first two grounds taken by the Department pertain to addition of Rs. 17,97,13,206/- on account of under-invoicing of sales. These grounds are identical to Ground no. 1 to 3 taken by Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 58/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19. Therefore, the decision taken in IT(SS)A No. 58/Ahd/2025 is applicable mutatis mutandis to this year as well. Accordingly, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 3 and 4: Investment in Sumel Business Park:

These grounds pertain to addition of Rs. 1,62,01,400/- on account of unexplained investment in Sumel Business Park – III in respect of purchase of shop no. E-038. This issue is covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 105/Ahd/2024 dated 28.11.2025 and also in the case of IT(SS)A No. 79/Ahd/2025 dated 18.12.2025. An identical addition of Rs.1,43,33,000/- was made in respect of purchase of shop no.-G-09 in the same project in the A.Y.2020-21 in the assessee’s own case, wherein the facts of the case and the rationale for allowing relief are discussed in detail. Following the decision as already taken on this

These grounds pertain to addition of Rs. 8,53,54,375/- on account of unexplained investment in Nana Chiloda Project. During the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased a land as a co-owner measuring 13658 sq. mts at Survey No. 109/2 at Nana Chiloda for Rs. 2,60,00,000/- on 18.02.2019. During the course of search, the registered sale-deed of land purchased by the assessee was found and no other incriminating material was found. The AO, however, observed that the purchase value of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- was far less than the market value of the land and that certain on-money had exchanged hands. The AO, in this respect, referred to a third party Whatsapp chat found and seized in the case of one Shri Vijaykumar K Manghrani during the search in his case. The said chat allegedly was between Shri Vijaykumar K Manghrani and one Shri Kamal Dalal, wherein the price of the land in Chiloda TP Scheme No. 241 was quoted at Rs. 22,500/- per sq. yd. The AO extrapolated this rate to the assessee's land, recomputed the purchase value at Rs. 36,75,37,500/- and treated the difference as unexplained investment and made the proportionate addition of Rs. 8,53,54,375/- alleging that the assessee had paid on-money to that extent for acquiring the said property. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition for the reason that the WhatsApp chat on the basis of which addition was made was a "dumb document" as it did not name the assessee, was for a different period, referred to a different survey number (124/2), and was completely

The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that although no direct incriminating material was found during the search on the assessee, the AO had material in the form of a third-party WhatsApp chat indicating a much higher market rate for properties in the same area. He contended that the WhatsApp chat was "indicative and relevant incriminating material" found during a search on the same day and the AO was right to draw inferences therefrom. Therefore, the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition by ignoring the market reality reflected in the chat.

Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that the third-party WhatsApp chat, relied upon by the AO, was uncorroborated and referred to a different property and a different period. Further, no cash trail for payment of any on-money was found in the course of search. The Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shiv Sagar Enterprise in IT(SS)A No. 87/Ahd/2024 dated 28.11.2025.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the instant case no incriminating document or any other material was found or seized from the premises of the assessee that could remotely suggest the payment of any consideration over and above what was recorded in the registered sale deed. The AO had presumed the payment of on-money by relying upon the digital chat recovered from a third person’s mobile

Following the decision as already taken on this issue, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 8,53,54,375/- on account of unexplained investment in Nana Chiloda Project is upheld. The grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. ember…………………Date on which the approved draft comes to ITA No. 108/Ahd/2025 : A.Y. 2020-21 (Shivkumar L Gogia) 47. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"], is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO under section 143(3)

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,15,500/- made by the AO on account of cash found during the course of search under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations filed by the assessee to justify the source of cash found during the search.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 56,34,159/- made by the AO account of house renovation expenses under section 69A rw s. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations filed by the assessee in this regard.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,51,000/- made by the AO account of renovation expenses under section 69A rows. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations filed by the assessee in this regard

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment under section 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that assessee has given loan of Rs. 60,000/- only and not Rs. 60,00,000/- as alleged by the AO (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations alongwith the evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,06,56,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged cash investment on purchase of Shop in Orbit project under section 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations along with the evidences brought on record by the assessee to justify that no such payment was made by the assessee. (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that no corroborative evidence has been brought on record by the AO in support of his allegation that assessee has paid the on-money towards purchase of property

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,28,000/- made by the AO on account of profit on sale of land (Orbit Shop) in AY 2020-21 under section 69A rw s. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations alongwith the evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged investment in 3 shops of Times Square Grand Project under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations alongwith the evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the additions despite the fact that the additions have been made by the AO without conducting any independent enquiry under section 133(6)/131 of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid additions despite the fact that the same has been made by the AO by indulging in surmises without bringing on any

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that AO has erred in drawing adverse inference against the assessee by misinterpreting the statement recorded during the course of search

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions have been made on the basis of dumb documents which are illegal, invalid and unsustainable.

That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal

Ground No. 1 to 3 are general in nature and the Ground no. 4 taken by the assessee was not pressed by the Ld. A.R. Hence the Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed. Ground Nos. 5 & 14 : Unaccounted Investment in Sumel III 49. Ground no. 5 and 14 taken by the assessee are inter-connected and hence are being dealt together. The AO had made the following additions in respect of undisclosed investment in Sumel Business Park-III project: (i) Addition of undisclosed investment of Rs. 1,44,33,000/- being on-money paid towards purchase of shop No. G-09, in Sumel Business Park – III project by adopting the purchase rate of Rs. 36,200 per square feet. (ii) Addition of Rs. 92,60,000/- being undisclosed investment towards purchase of shop No. C-339 in Sumel Business Park – III project.

Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, explained that in the course of search, certain digital data from mobile of the assessee was extracted. The “Image No.IMG-20181026-WA0027.jpeg” (page no.12), was handwritten financial transaction of Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia and in the course of statement of the assessee recorded on 24-25.01.2020, this document was explained as proposed payment for purchase of Shop No.339, “C” Block, Sumel Park-III, opp. Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad. As per his statement, this Shop was purchased at the rate of Rs.36,200/- per sq. ft. and sold at the rate of Rs.43,500/- per sq. ft. It was also submitted by the assessee that the said deal did not materialize and was cancelled.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had purchased a shop No. G-09 in Sumel Park-III project on 25.07.2019 for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of the document recovered from the mobile of the assessee had adopted the purchase price of the property at Rs.36,200/- per sq. ft. and worked out the purchase consideration of the shop of area 465 sq. ft. at Rs.1,68,33,000/-. Accordingly, an addition for on-money payment of Rs. 1,43,33,000/- in this transaction, was made by the AO, which was held as undisclosed investment of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that this addition of Rs.1,43,33,000/- in respect of on- money payment was based on mere presumption & surmise. He submitted that no evidence for any on-money payment made by the

Per contra, Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had relied upon the documents found from the assessee’s mobile for making the two additions. Those documents were duly explained by the assessee in his statements recorded on different dates. Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO had rightly adopted the rate as appearing in the seized documents for working out the actual purchase consideration paid by the assessee. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the lower authorities in respect of both the additions.

We have considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.1,43,33,000/- on account of on- money payment for purchase of shop no. G-09 in Sumel Park-III project. As per the sale deed, the shop was acquired by the assessee on 25.07.2019 for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer had adopted the cost of acquisition of this property at the rate of Rs.36,200/- per sq. ft. as appearing in the seized document page no.12 of Lamborghini Mobile data of the assessee. It will be relevant here to examine the explanation of the assessee in respect of this page no.12. Shri Gogia in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 24.01.2022, in reply to question no.11 had stated as under: -

The assessee had thus initially stated that this document had details of proposed payments but had denied having purchased the Shop No. – 339, C Block, Sumel Park-III and stated that no payments were made with regard to this deal. In the next question, Sri Gogia was again asked to explain the transaction appearing on page no.12, to which he had replied as under: -

It is thus found that the assessee had stated that Shop No.C- 339 was purchased by him at Rs.36,200/- per sq. ft. and sold at Rs.43,000/- per sq. ft. along with one Shri Sonubhai alias Rajendra Keshwani and in the process, they had earned profit of Rs.97,10,000/- . He had, however, also stated that this deal was cancelled and the token amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as appearing in the seized document was returned. The AO had merely relied upon the initial statement of the assessee for taking purchase price of the property by the assessee at Rs.36,200/- per square feet. The assessee had subsequently retracted his statement and his subsequent explanation for page number- 12 of the mobile data was as under:

The assessee has contended that page no-12 was a dumb document and no addition could have been made on that basis. The AO had taken the figure of “36200” appearing in this page as the rate of purchase. We have carefully gone through this document. In this seized document, only figure of “36200” is appearing and no “rate” or “per sq. ft.” is found prefixed or suffixed to this figure. Therefore, there was no explicit evidence to conclude that the figure of “36200” represented per sq. ft. rate of purchase. Further, no area is found mentioned in this document so as to work out the purchase consideration and confirm the rate. So far as the “rate” is concerned, this document is found to be a dumb document. Therefore, the AO was not correct in treating the figure of “36200” as the rate of purchase of shop by the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence in this respect.

If the Assessing Officer was going to adopt the cost of acquisition of the Shop No. G-09 in Sumel Business Park-III, Project purchased by the assessee, at the rate of “36200” as mentioned in the seized document page no.12, he was required to establish that the particular transaction of the assessee had actually taken place at that rate. Alternatively, the AO was required to establish that the fair market value of the property was Rs.36,200/- per square feet. No evidence was brought on record to establish the fact that the assessee had purchased the Shop No. C-339 at the rate of Rs.36,200/- per square feet, for a consideration of Rs.92,60,000/-. For that matter, no evidence for purchase of this property by the assessee has been brought on record. In the absence of any such evidence, the Assessing Officer was not correct in taking the figure of “36200” appearing in the seized document, as the “rate” for working out the cost of acquisition of the property by the assessee. The assessee’s subsequent explanation was for purchase proposal of not one shop but of five shops for a consideration of Rs.92,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry to find out the stamp duty value of the property. Neither the matter was referred to the DVO to find out the market value of the property. No evidence, whatsoever, was brought on record to establish that the fair market value of the shop mentioned in the document was at the rate of Rs.36,200/- per square feet. As rightly contended by the assessee, no evidence for any cash payment by the assessee for purchase of the properties was found in the course of search. In view of these facts the addition of Rs.1,43,33,000/- made by the AO is found to be based on mere

So far as investment in shop No. C-339 is concerned, the assessee in his initial statement (reply to Ques. No.-11) had stated that the shop was not purchased and no such payment was made. Thereafter, in reply to Ques. No.-12, the assessee did admit payment of Rs.72,84,000/- for purchase of this shop. In the retraction statement, the assessee had contended that his reply was wrongly recorded by the Inspector and he once again denied the transaction. The assessee had categorically stated that the deal didn’t materialize and no payment was made for purchase of this property. In the retraction statement the assessee had stated that the proposal was for shop No.C-339 and 4 other shops. In this regard, reliance was placed on the word “5” appearing at the top of seized document, where this noting is found appearing. In view of this fact, the AO should have made further enquiry to establish the alleged investment by the assessee in these shops. It is not the case that the assessee had made the retraction at the fag end and the AO had no time to conduct enquiries. The assessee had submitted the retraction before the AO on 02.11.2020 and the AO had passed the final order on 29.09.2021. Thus, the AO had sufficient time to make verification in the matter. The AO had simply relied upon the statement of the assessee, which was alleged to be wrongly recorded, for making this addition. No enquiry was made by the AO to establish that the

As regards, addition for profit of Rs. 97,10,000/- on sale of shop no. C-339, we do not find any conclusive evidence for the profit earned by the assessee in this transaction in the seized document. Though the figure “97.10” is appearing as “Total Profit”, such profit does not work out by applying the rate “43500” appearing on the left side of the document. Further, considering the fact that the word “Token Cancelled” appears on the seized document, the claim of the assessee that the transaction did not materialize, could not have been ignored. Further no evidence for purchase and sale of shop mentioned in this seized document was found in the course of search. We have already held earlier that no evidence for purchase of this shop was brought on record by the Revenue. In the absence of any evidence for purchase of shop there couldn’t have any addition for

Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed. Ground no. 6: Unaccounted Cash

In the course of search, cash of Rs. 14,15,000/- was found at the residential premise of the assessee out of which Rs. 12,00,000/- was seized. In the course of statement recorded during the search the assessee had stated that the cash of Rs. 14,15,500/- found during the search represented his unaccounted income. In the course of assessment, however, the assessee contended that the cash of Rs. 12,00,000/- belonged to the business concern of the family namely M/s. Shivalik Fashions Pvt. Ltd. The explanation of the assessee was, however, not accepted by the AO and the entire cash of Rs. 14,15,500/- was held as unexplained income of the assessee.

Shri Dhinal Shah, the Ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that the assessee had given complete reconciliation of cash found during the course of the search before the Ld. CIT(A). According to him the cash found was fully reconciled with the personal books of accounts and the books of business entities and no addition was called for on account of unaccounted cash. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions of the assessee. In the course of statement recorded during the search the assessee had categorically stated that the cash of Rs.14,15,500/- found in the

The AO had made addition of Rs.1,31,72,440/- on account of unexplained jewellery. In the course of search, jewellery and diamond ornaments valued at Rs. 1,98,31,416/- was found, out of which jewellery worth Rs. 66,58,976/- was returned to the assessee. The seized jewellery of Rs.1,31,72,440/- was treated as unexplained investment in the hand of the assessee. Shri Dhinal Shah, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee belongs to Sindhi family and was married 30 years back. According to him, the amount of jewellery found during search was reasonable considering the customary practice of Sindhi family and stree-dhan of lady family members. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions of the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that as per CBDT instruction gold ornaments up to 500 grams for each lady member and 100 gram for others, is deemed to be explained. Following this yard-stick the gold ornaments and jewellery of 2100 grams in respect of 9 family members was claimed as explained. The assessee had given the following reconciliation of gold ornaments and jewelry before the AO.

According to AO, the contention of the assessee that certain gold and diamond jewelleries were purchased in earlier years, was not supported with any documentary evidence. It is, however, found that the evidence for purchase of gold ornaments weighing 624.62 grams and diamond jewellery weighing 129.37 grams, was duly

As per the reconciliation statement of the assessee, 192.05 gram of gold ornaments valued at Rs. 5,51,267/- and 772.35 gram of diamond jewellery worth Rs. 87,68,305/-, totalling Rs.93,19,572/- was excess. The contention of the assessee was that the excess gold ornaments of 192 grams was received as gift on various occasions. The AO had considered the jewelleries as explained to the extent of 5oo gms per lady member and 100 gms for others, as per CBDT guideline. The guidance of the CBDT regarding possession of 500 grams ornaments by each lady and 100 gms for others, was only for seizure of jewellery and ornaments found in the course of search. This yardstick of possession is only a general guideline and the possession of jewellery has to be considered by taking into account the status, family background, customary practices etc. The assessee had submitted that the jewellery of 192 gms. was gifted to the family members on various occasions such as marriage, birth of children, etc.; such gifts are very common in Indian culture and society. Further,

As regards, the excess diamond jewellery of 772.35 grams valued at Rs.87,68,305/- the assessee had explained that the same was acquired in Dubai while he was working there. However, no evidence in the form of bills and vouchers for acquisition of diamond jewellery in Dubai has been brought on record. When the assessee had maintained the bills for jewellery purchased in India from 1996 to 2005, the bills for the diamond jewellery purchased in Dubai from 2002 to 2009 should have been available with him. In the absence of any such evidence the contention of the assessee is not found acceptable. Accordingly, the addition on account unexplained jewellery is restricted to the extent of Rs. 87,63,305/- only. The ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed.

In the course of search a loose paper, page no. 15 of Annexure A-1 containing details of marriage expense of Shri Sagar Gogia, son of the assessee, was found and seized. In the course of statement recorded during the search the assessee had explained that the marriage of his son Shri Sagar Gogia was to be solemnized on 27 to

The Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the search was carried out on 15.10.2019 and the expenditure as mentioned in the seized documents was only proposed expenditure. The assessee’s son had got married afterwards on 26 to 28th November 2019 and the actual marriage expense was to the extent of Rs. 87,90,000/- only. Therefore, the AO was not correct in making addition of Rs.37,10,000/- which was only difference between the proposed expenditure and the actual expenditure. The Ld. AR submitted that pursuant to the search, many of the expenditures were curtailed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR on the other hand, submitted that the seized document contained specific details of each and every expenditure and the assessee neither specified nor explained as to which particular expenditure was curtailed. He submitted that considering the nature of expenditures as mentioned in the seized documents there was no scope for curtailing those expenditures.

We have considered the rival submissions. The seized document page no. 15 on Annexure A-1 is found reproduced at page

The AO had made addition of Rs. 56,34,149/- on account of house renovation expense based on certain images/documents found from the mobile phone of the assessee. Before the AO, the assessee had contended that certain pages were duplicate and the actual unaccounted expense was Rs. 28,62,512/- only. However, the AO did

We have considered the facts of the case. The seized documents on the basis of which the addition was made, is reproduced in the assessment order. It is found that the assessee had filed a page wise explanation in respect of these documents which is also reproduced in the assessment order. The page wise summary furnished by the assessee in this regard was as under: No. Page no. Image No. Amount Comments of assessee involved (Rs.) 1 47 & 89 IMG-20190729- 1170000 Included in WA02225 unaccounted expenses on Page No. 110 2 79 IMG-20190923- 341020 Included in WA02000 Unaccounted expenses on Page No. 149 3 93 IMG-20190809- 803155 Related to estimates for WA0023 flat. No work done till date. Hence no expenses incurred. 4 102 IMG-20190719- 172823 Unaccounted expenses, WA0069 not recorded in books 5 104 IMG-20190724- 174441 Included in WA0109 unaccounted expenses on Page No. 112 6 110 IMG- 1193401 Unaccounted expenses, 20190729WA00224 not recorded in books

It is found that the AO did not consider the explanation of the assessee that entries in certain pages were duplicate entries. For example, Page No. 47 and 110 were bill given by Global Crafters Engineering and Fabrication. While the page no. 47 was only a rough estimate for Rs. 11,97,281/-, page no. 110 was a detail working with material cost and GST for Rs. 11,93,401/-. Similarly, page no. 79 was rough quotation for Bronze Armani Marble for Rs.3,41,020/- whereas page no. 149 was Performa invoice of Bronze Armani Marble for Rs. 5,06,107/- wherein cash advance payment of Rs. 1,99,000/- made earlier was also reflected. Considering these evidences, the AO was not correct in rejecting the submission of the assessee that some of the entries in the seized documents were duplicate in nature. Similarly, page no. 93 was explained as only an estimate pertaining to which no expense was incurred. From the perusal of this document, we do not find any evidence for actual expense being incurred. The AO had rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that no supporting evidence in support of the claim was furnished. When no

Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. A.R submitted that the name Suraj Bhojwani was randomly picked up from the mobile contact details and a general question was asked in the course of statement of the assessee about his relation with him. According to the Ld. AR the assessee had stated having advanced loan of Rs. 60,000/- only to Shri Suraj Bhojwani sometimes in the past, which was wrongly recorded as Rs.60,00,000/- in the statement. He submitted that when this mistake came to the knowledge the assessee, he had filed a retraction statement and also an affidavit of Sh. Suraj Bhojwani that loan of Rs. 60,000/- only was received and not Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that no corroborative evidence or any material was found in the course of search regarding advancement of any loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- to Shri Suraj Bhojwani. Hence, there was no basis to make this addition.

Per Contra, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- was made on the basis of own admission of the assessee in the course of statement recorded during the search. He submitted that the subsequent retraction of the assessee and the affidavit of Shri Suraj Bhojwani were only afterthoughts.

We have considered the rival submissions and the facts of the case. The undisputed fact is that no evidence was found in the course of search regarding advance of loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- by the assessee to Shri Suraj Bhojwani. The addition was made only on the basis of statement of the assessee made in the course of search wherein he had admitted having advanced loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- sometimes in the past. The actual date of advancement of loan was

Ground Nos. 12 & 13 pertain to unaccounted investment in shop in project Orbit. In the course of search, a seized document page no.- 47 was found from the mobile of the assessee. The assessee had initially stated that the property referred in page no. 47 was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs.4,06,56,000/- and sold at Rs.4,55,84,000/-, thereby earning profit of Rs.49,28,000/-. Though this transaction was initially stated to be in respect one showroom in

The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there was no shop of area 2464 sq. ft. as mentioned in this seized document (page no.47) in the Project Orbit and, therefore, the AO was not correct in relying upon this document for making the addition in the hand of the assessee. He submitted that the addition was based on mere presumption and no corroborative evidence for any payment for purchase of the property was found in the course of search. That there was no corroborating evidence to support the presumption of payment in cash by the assessee towards purchase consideration and neither such evidence was found in the course of search. The Ld. AR further submitted that this issue was covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sagar Shivkumar Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 79/Ahd/2025 dated 18.12.2025. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the addition was based on the document found from the mobile of the assessee which was duly explained in the statements of the assessee recorded on different dates. Ld. CIT- DR strongly supported the order of the lower authorities on this issue.

We have considered the rival submissions. So far as addition of Rs. 4,06,56,000/- on account of unexplained investment in shop is concerned, there is no evidence in this respect appearing in the seized document. The purchase consideration of Rs. 4,06,56,000/- adopted by the AO is not found reflected in the seized document. Neither there is any evidence that this property was acquired during the current year. The assessee in the course of assessment proceeding had stated that the transaction was not in respect of any shop but it pertained to a piece of land purchased 5 to 6 years earlier. The evidence available in the seized documents is regarding sale consideration of Rs. 4,55,84,000/- out of which Rs. 3,44,64,000/- was received on different dates and balance Rs.1,11,20,000/- was outstanding. In the absence of any evidence for purchase consideration or the actual date of purchase of the property appearing in the seized document, the AO was not correct in concluding that the assessee had made unexplained investment of Rs. 4,06,56,000/- in the shop in project Orbit in the current year. From the dates as appearing in the seized document (which is discussed afterwards) , it is evident that this investment was not made in the current year. Therefore, we do not find any basis for addition of Rs. 4,06,56,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in shop in project Orbit. As already discussed earlier, the addition could not have been made only on the basis of statement of the assessee. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,06,56,000/- on account of unexplained investment in shop in project Orbit, is deleted.

As regards, profit of Rs. 49,28,000/- in respect of the transaction as appearing in this seized document, the assessee did not deny the fact that he had earned this profit. In the statement recorded during the search, the profit of Rs. 49,28,000/- was stated to be in respect of shop in project Orbit. In the assessment proceeding, however, the assessee had stated that the transaction was not in respect of shop but it pertained to sale of a piece of land. The assessee in reply dated 03/04/2021 to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, had submitted as under: (iii) This land having area 2464 sq yard has been purchased before 5 to 6 years @ Rs.16,500/- per sq. yard at Rs.4,06,56,000/-. Thereafter this land has been outright sold out @ Rs.18,500/- per sq. yard at Rs.4,55,84,000/-. Hence, overall profit in this transaction is of Rs.49,28,000/- by me, which is not recorded in my books of accounts. 84. It was thus admitted by the assessee that page No. 47 of digital image was related to land deal and not to the shop in project Orbit. At the same time, the fact that he had earned profit of Rs. 49,28,000/- in this transaction, was not denied. Subsequently, the assessee vide letter dated 03.08.2021 had made the following submissions before the AO: 6. With regard to supporting evidences of land, as per my memories this land was purchased by me and my family in the year 2015 @ Rs. 16,500/- per sq. yard investing Rs. 406,56,000/-, however, purchase evidences were destroyed after deal was over and this land was sold out within short period and received amount of Rs. 455,84,000/- in part from August 2016 to December 2016, which is duly acknowledged by Shivkumar Gogia and office staff.

The assessee had reiterated that entry in the seized document was not pertaining to project Orbit but was in respect of land transaction. It was explained that the land was purchased in the year 2015 and the evidence for purchase was destroyed. Further that the land was sold within a short period and the sale consideration of Rs. 4,55,84,000/- was received on different dates from August’16 to December’16. The assessee had also contended that the dates mentioned in the seized document (page No. 47) was after the date of search. It is found from the seized document that the assessee had received Rs. 3,44,64,000/- on different dates during the period from 26th August to 13th December. As the search was conducted in this case on 15.10.2019, when this document was seized, the dates appearing in the page No. 47 could not have been after the date of search but for an earlier period only. Therefore, the date of 26th August to 13th December appearing in the document didn’t pertain to the year of search i.e. 2019 (relevant to A.Y.2020-21) but for an earlier year. The contention of the assessee that this land was sold in the financial year 2016-17 itself also cannot be accepted,

The AO had made addition of Rs.10 crore in respect of undisclosed investment in 3 shops in Times Square project on the basis of the statement of the assessee made in the course of search. The Ld. AR submitted that no incriminating material was found in the course of search regarding any such investment in Shop No. 8, 9 & 10 of Times Square Grand commercial scheme. Further that the statement was subsequently retracted by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had never purchased any such property in the project and no shop was ever owned by the assessee in this project. He contended that no addition could have been made only on the basis of statement of the assessee without any corroborative evidence.

Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee had suo moto made the statement regarding investment in 3 shops in Time Square project. He explained that the information disclosed in the statement that the project was developed by Shrinathjeee Infra Space LLP, was found correct in subsequent inquiry, which was corroborative evidence to make the addition. He, therefore, supported the order of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions. The statement of the assessee regarding investment in 3 shops i.e. shop no. 8, 9 & 10 in Time Square Grand commercial scheme is reproduced in the assessment order. There is no denial to the fact that the assessee had admitted having made investment in 3 shops in the Times Square project in the course of his statement. It was also stated that he had made payment of Rs. 10 crores for this transaction and balance Rs.15

The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed violating the mandatory provisions of section 153D of the Act

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 72.20.976/-on account of under- invoicing of sales made by the AO

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 2,72,85,000/- made by the AO alleging that assessee has paid on money towards purchase of Shop No. 10 in "Orbit Project' under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made without conducting any independent enquiry under section 133(6)/131 of the Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that AO has erred in drawing adverse inference against the assessee by misinterpreting the statement recorded during the course of search.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions has been made relying upon the material collected at the back of the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee and without providing proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions has been made relying upon the statement recorded at the back of the assessee without providing the opportunity to cross examine the same

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid additions despite the same has been made by indulging in surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption, suspicion and assumption.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid additions made by the AO using the data extracted from the digital devices without following the procedure prescribed under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal.

The first ground taken by assessee is general in nature and the ground no. 2 was not pressed. Hence, the first two grounds are dismissed.

Ground No.-3 is interlinked with Ground no. 1 to 3 of the Department’s appeal. Hence, this ground will be taken up while adjudicating the appeal of the Revenue.

Ground No. 4 pertains to addition of Rs. 2,72,85,000/- on account of unexplained investment in shop No. 10 in project Orbit. This ground is identical to ground no. 12 of IT(SS)A No. 108/Ahd/2025 in the case of Shri Shivakumar Gogia. The decision taken on this issue in that case is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present ground as taken by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 2,72,85,000/- on account of unexplained investment in shop in Project Orbit is deleted. The ground is allowed.

Ground No. 5 to 9 are only incidental grounds and were not pressed by the Ld. AR, hence dismissed.

Ground No. 10 was also not pressed. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 97. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

All the grounds taken by the Revenue in this appeal as well as ground no.-3 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to addition of Rs. 10,83,14,648/- on account of under-invoicing of sales. In the course of search at the premises of the assessee, certain evidences for cash sales were found. The AO after analyzing the documents and the books of accounts of the assessee had concluded that under- invoicing of sales was done in the ratio of 40% in cash and 60% by cheque. The AO had accordingly, worked out under-invoicing of Rs. 11,55,35,624/-. The Ld. CIT(A), however, had found from the

The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO had taken the holistic view considering the evidences found in the course of search from the assessee as well as from the sister concern. He submitted that it was evident that the assessee was engaged in systematic suppression of sales and same pattern of under-invoicing for the entire year was rightly adopted by the AO. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the estimation made by the AO was reasonable and the Ld. CIT(A) had taken an unrealistically narrow view of the seized evidences while reducing the addition.

Per Contra, the Ld. AR Submitted that the estimation at the rate of 40% as adopted by the AO which was reduced to 4% by CIT(A) was based on extrapolated theory. He submitted that the total amount of alleged incriminating order estimates pertaining to Shivali Fashions Pvt. Ltd. found in the course of search was to the extent of Rs.20,00,497/- only. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the entire under-invoiced turn-over as worked out @ 4%. He submitted that only the profit element of the alleged unaccounted sales can be taxed and not the gross amount. The Ld. AR further submitted that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shivali Fashions Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. IT(SS)A

We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that certain evidences for under-invoicing of sales were found in the course of search, which pertained to the assessee. The AO had estimated the under-invoicing of sales to the extent of 40%, the basis of which is not explained in his order. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) had worked out the percentage of under-invoicing at 3.40% on the basis of actual invoices found in the course of search. Therefore, the estimation of under-invoicing being @ 4%, as worked out by ld. CIT(A), is not only based on correct appreciation of seized document but is also found to be reasonable. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) vis-à-vis the under- invoicing of sales as worked out by him. At the same time, the direction of Ld. CIT(A) to treat the entire unaccounted turn-over of Rs. 72,20,976/- as income of the assessee cannot be upheld. It is a settled position of law that only the profit element of unaccounted sales can be brought to tax and not the entire turn-over. Following the decision taken by co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 55/Ahd/2025 dated 24.07.2025, we direct that the profit element of the unaccounted turn-over as worked out by the Ld. CIT(A), should be brought to tax at profit rate of 10%.

Accordingly, the ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

The grounds taken by the Revenue in this appeal are as under: 1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,16,22,689/-being undisclosed business income without considering the fact of the case that the addition made by the AO was based on cogent evidence, rational inference and established legal principles."

The first three grounds taken by the Revenue pertain to addition of Rs.25,16,22,689/- on account of under-invoicing of sales. The facts of the case and the grounds are identical to the grounds as taken on this issue in IT(SS)A No. 58/Ahd/2025 in the case of Shir Shivkumar L. Gogia, already decided earlier. Therefore, the decision on this issue as taken in IT(SS)A No. 58/Ahd/2025 is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal as well. Accordingly, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 4 – Investment in Sumel Business Park

This ground pertains to addition of Rs.1,68,60,200/- in respect of purchase of shop No. E-306 in Sumel Business Park – III. This issue is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 105/Ahd/2025 dated 28.11.2015 and also in the case of IT(SS)A No. 79/Ahd/2025 dated 18.12.2025. Further an identical addition in the case of Shri Shivkumar Gogia has also been adjudicated earlier in IT(SS)A No. 108/Ahd/2025. Following the decisions as already taken on this issue, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed.

This ground pertains to addition of Rs.8,53,84,375/- on account of undisclosed investment in purchase of land at Nana Chiloda. An identical issue was involved in the case of Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025 adjudicated earlier. The decision taken on this issue in that case is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal as well. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground taken by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 54/Ahd/2025 : A.Y. 2020-21 (Amit Gogia) 109. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- made by the AO alleging that assessee has paid on money towards purchase of Shop No. 17 in "Orbit Project under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made without conducting any independent enquiry under section 133(6)/131 of the Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made relying upon the document which has no bearing with the assessee.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that AO has erred in drawing adverse inference against the assessee by misinterpreting the statement recorded during the course of search.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made relying upon the material collected at the back of the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee and without providing proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made relying upon the statement recorded at the back of the assessee without providing the opportunity to cross examine the same.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid addition despite the same has been made by indulging in surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid addition made by the AO using the data extracted from the digital devices without following the procedure prescribed under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

The only effective ground contested by the Ld. AR in this appeal was Ground no.-3 regarding addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account unexplained investment in Project Orbit. The Ld. AR submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia in IT(SS)A/79/2025 dated 18.12.2025. We find that this ground is identical to ground no. 12 of IT(SS)A No. 108/Ahd/2025 in the case of Shri Shivakumar Gogia, adjudicated earlier. The decision taken on this issue in that case is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present ground as taken by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in shop in Project Orbit is deleted. The ground is allowed. 111. All other grounds were not pressed by the Ld. AR, hence dismissed. 112. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 113. In the final result, all the appeals filed by the three different assessees are partly allowed while all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. This Order pronounced on 12/03/2026