GANESHARAM GALBARAM MALI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- was not sustainable as it was based solely on third-party documents and statements without independent corroboration. The assessee was also denied the opportunity to cross-examine the key witness.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased a shop where the Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that a portion of the payment was made in cash as 'on-money'. This allegation was based on seized Excel sheets and statements from third parties involved in the sale.
What were the issues?
Whether additions can be made based solely on third-party seized material and statements without corroboration and opportunity for cross-examination. Whether the provisions of Section 153C were correctly applied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE1,335 citing62 Taxmann.com 3 · 2015 · SC
- CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.408 citing418 ITR 315 · 2019 · SC
- H.R. Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai125 citing72 Taxmann.com 110 · 2016 · HC
- Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.92 citing113 ITR 389 · 1978 · HC
- CIT v. Metal Products of India47 citing150 ITR 714 · 1984 · HC
- Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT23 citing43 SOT 544 · 2011 · ITAT
- 11 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the same assessee filed against the order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax appeal 52, Mumbai [for brevity the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18 to 2019-20, date of order 03.09.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C.C.-4(2) Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 153C of the A
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026