BALWANT LAXMANJI PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

PER BENCH

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee challenging the order dated 11.10.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed order u/s 250 of th pertaining to assessm
2. As facts are ide disposed off by way
8452/Mum/2025 pe case. The grounds ra
1. On the erred i notice contrav issued
2. On the erred increm incrimi
Appella
3. On the erred i docum group w
4. On the erred statem
5. On the erred i examin agains
6. On the erred i
Act.
7. On the holding of law, require and/or satisfa proceed
ITA No.

he Income-tax Act, 1961 (in ment year 2017-18 to 2019-2020
entical, these appeals were hea of this consolidated order by rtaining to assessment year 20
aised by the assessee are reprodu e facts and circumstances of the case in in confirming the stand of A.O. about th u/s 153C of the Act without DIN.
vention of the Circular No. 19/2019, da d by the CBDT.
e facts and circumstances of the case in in confirming addition without refe menting document. Besides, he has not r inating material in the satisfaction note ant.
e facts and circumstances of the case in in confirming stand of A.O. for not sharin ments found during the course of search which was pertained to the appellant.
e facts and circumstances of the case in in confirming stand of A.O. about the ment and materials used by him against th e facts and circumstances of the case in in confirming stand of A.O. about oppor nation of the person whose statemen st the appellant.
e facts and circumstances of the case in in confirming addition of Rs. 2,00,000/
e facts and circumstances of the case, the g that a combined satisfaction note is va
, as current legal and judicial precedent o es separate satisfaction notes for each as r entity; the recording of a combined o action note has consistently been held dings under section 153C of the Income T
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
2
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
short ‘the Act’)
0 respectively.
ard together and taking ITA No.
017-18 as a lead uced as under:
law, Ld CIT(A) hat issuing the It is blatant ated 14-8-2019
law, Ld. CIT(A) erring to any referred to any e issued to the law, Ld. CIT(A) ng incrementing h of rubberwala law, Ld. CIT(A) e not providing he appellant.
law, Ld. CIT(A) rtunity of cross nts were used law, Ld. CIT(A)
/-u/s 69 of the e CIT(A) erred in alid in the eyes overwhelmingly ssessment year or consolidated d to vitiate the Tax Act.

the present appeals lies in a sea d under Section 132 of the I es of the 'Rubberwala Group' (M tructure Ltd., hereinafter 'RHI ch proceedings, revenue autho promoter, Shri Tabresh Shaik an Ansari. The search team mran Ansari, on which data of sa el sheet. The essence of th the "Platinum Mall" project of g the present assessee, had pai ve the registered consideration leged cash receipts from vario
9,11,206/-, was treated by the b s and subsequently offered to ta these third-party statements a rive seized from residence of sh er (AO) initiated proceedings sment proceedings u/s 153C sumed that the purchasers of s orresponding cash payments. A nent aggregating to Rs.12,72,37
treated as unexplained investme
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
3
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
arch and seizure
Income-tax Act,
M/s Rubberwala
IL'). During the orities recorded kh, and a key m also found a ale of shops was heir depositions f RHIL, various d "on-money" in . The aggregate ous purchasers builder group as ax by applying a and excel sheet h Imran Ansari, under Section of the Act, the hops in the said
Accordingly, the 5/- attributable ent/expenditure in the hands of th
Rs.2,00,000/- in as assessment year 201
2019-2020
4. After consideri
Assessing Officer pa under section 153C o
AY 2017-18, determin an addition of ₹2,00
alleged on-money pa
Assessing Officer w
Commissioner of Inco
4.1 Aggrieved the challenging the order
5. The learned A submitted that no in was found or seized that the Assessing recorded in the case on record to establis and the assessee. It purchased the shop valuation and that ITA No.

he assessee in three assessm ssessment year 2017-18 ; Rs
18-19 ; and Rs.4,01,625/- in a ing the submissions of the assed the assessment order da of the Act for the year under con ning the total income at ₹5,57,9
0,000/- under section 69 of t ayment to RHIL. The addition s was subsequently confirmed b ome-tax (Appeals).
assessee is in appeal before r of the Ld. CIT(A) on abovement
Authorised Representative for criminating material pertaining during the course of search. It Officer has merely relied up of a third party, without bringi sh a nexus between the allege was further submitted that th p at a value higher than th the entire consideration was Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
4
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
ment years i.e.
s.6,70,750/- in assessment year assessee, the ated 25.03.2024
nsideration, i.e.,
960/- by making the Act towards so made by the by the learned e the Tribunal tioned grounds.
r the assessee g to the assessee t was contended pon statements ing any material ed cash receipts he assessee had he stamp duty s paid through banking channels. T any cash to the bui very assumption of ju absence of any incrim the assessee. The lea series of decisions of purchasers in the sa based on the same m
6. Per contra, the the order of the lower
7. We have heard t available on record.
had purchased a s assessee has consiste the builder over an registered agreement made solely on the b proceedings in the ca third-party statemen premises of the build has been brought on that the assessee had evident that the A meaningful enquiry t
ITA No.

The assessee categorically deni lder. The learned counsel also uri iction under section 153C minating material belonging to arned counsel further drew ou f the Tribunal in the cases of me project of RHIL, wherein ide material had been deleted.
Ld. Departmental Representativ r authorities.
the rival submissions and perus
It is an undisputed position th hop in the project developed ently denied having made any c nd above the consideration r t. The addition in the present basis of statements recorded du ase of RHIL and its employees. A nts and the alleged data reco der group, no independent mate n record by the Assessing Offi d in fact paid any on-money in Assessing Officer has not c to corroborate the alleged paym
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
5
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
ied having paid challenged the of the Act in the or pertaining to ur attention to a similarly placed entical additions ve (DR) relied on sed the material hat the assessee by RHIL. The cash payment to recorded in the case has been uring the search
Apart from such overed from the erial or evidence cer to establish cash. It is also conducted any ment of cash by the assessee. No doc to the assessee has course of assessmen reliance on the state
Ansari but the asses examine them. The "
from a third party. Th therein pertains s corroborative evidenc
Under Section 69, th an investment was m source.
7.1 We find that the covered by the decisi
Pravin
Khetaram
4742/Mum/2025 d and identical facts.
consideration of the legal position, held th basis of third-party s premises of the build evidence establishing
7.2 The Coordinate assessee has denied
ITA No.

cument or seized material spec been confronted to the asses nt proceedings. The Revenue ments of Shri Tabresh Shaikh ssee was not afforded an oppor
"pen drive" containing excel sh he Revenue failed to demonstra specifically to the assessee ce, such as independent diaries e burden lies on the Revenue to made before asking the assesse e issue involved in the present ion of the Coordinate Bench of Purohit v.
DCIT
&
O dated 15.10.2025) relating to t
The Coordinate Bench, afte e very same search material, hat no addition can be sustaine tatements or electronic data rec der group, in the absence of an g payment of on-money by the p e Bench further observed th d having made any such pay
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
6
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
cifically referring ssee during the heavily placed and Shri Imran rtunity to cross- heets was seized ate that the data through any s or cash trails.
o first prove that ee to explain its case is squarely the Tribunal in rs.
(ITA
No.
the same group er an elaborate statements and ed merely on the covered from the ny corroborative urchaser.
hat where the yment and the Revenue fails to bri addition cannot be failure to provide the persons whose state violation of the princ unsustainable in law ordinate Bench in th ors. in ITA No. 4742
the Ld. counsel is rep
“8. We have heard t material placed on r the revenue authorit completed u/s 153C conducted on 17.03
M/s. Rubberwala H
Shri Tabrez Shaikh, who was handling s were covered. Amon on various dates du
The employee of Ru from the respective assessee denied pay with the details of found, which was c
U/s 132(4) of the Ac was upheld by the L
9. We noticed that bench in case of Ra having gone through
Ld. CIT(A) in its orde
5.1. On 17.0
covered by wa was also init
ITA No.

ing any independent material sustained. The Bench also em e assessee an opportunity to cro ements are relied upon amoun ciples of natural justice, renderi w. The relevant extract of the dec he case of Pravin Khetaram Pu
2/Mum/2025 dated 15.10.2025
produced herein under for ready the arguments for both the parties and ha record, judgements cited before me and t ties. From the records, we noticed that t
C on account of the fact that a search and 3.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search
Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), its pr and a key employee of Rubberwala grou sale & registration of shops in “Platinum ng others, statement of these persons we ring the course of search as well as post ubberwala group confirmed that the cash e buyers of the shops. However, on t yment of cash. We noticed that during th cash transactions with respect to Rub confirmed through statement of Shri Im ct and on this basis, 153C order was fr
Ld.CIT(A).
Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decisio ajesh Jain on identical issue but mispla h the basic facts of Rajesh Jain case wh er and the same is reproduced as under:
03.2021, the residential premise of the ay of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, tiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
7
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
on record, the mphasized that oss-examine the nts to a serious ing the addition cision of the Co- rohit v. DCIT &
5 relied upon by y reference:
ave also perused the the orders passed by the assessment was d seizure action was h action, premises of romoter and director- up Shri Imran Ansari,
Mall” project of RHIL ere recorded on oath t search proceedings.
h has been collected the other hand, the he search a pendrive bberwala group was mran Ansari recorded ramed and the same on of the coordinate ace its reliance. After hich is mentioned by assessee was also 1961. Search action
2021. In such action along with p residences of Tabrez Shaik group handlin
RHIL were co of these perso well as post s
5.2. During th
109, 2nd Flo
Central - 400
section 132 of at his resid
17.03.2021, responsibilitie
In response,
Rubberwala g registration of Housing & Inf
5.3. Shri Imra statement exp the “Platinum structure of categorically component an decided by S
Rubberwala G
Q. no. 16, sta communicated the said state sheets. Corro
Imran Ansari
Shri Imran A The said pen he also accep sale of shops is prepared b with the fac premises of S
Group.
ITA No.

remises (offices/sites/others) of Rubber f various key persons including its promo kh, and Shri Imran Ansari - a key empl ng sale & registration of shops in “Plati overed under section 132 of the Act. Amo ons were recorded on oath on various da search proceedings.
he action on Rubberwala Group, among or, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg
0011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari f the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was a dence. Vide question no. 11 of the Shri Imran Ansari was questioned a es in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infra
Shri Imran Ansari stated that he has group of entities since 2010 and inter-ali of the shops in “PlatinumMall” Project o frastructure Ltd (RHIL).
an Ansari in his response to question no.
plained the complete procedure of the of m Mall” project. While explaining furth the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in resp revealed that the total price of the s nd banking channel component, and th
Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RH
Group). On probing further, Shri Imran A ated that these prices, as decided by Shr d to him orally. He also revealed in resp ement that data related to shops is mainta oborating to the fact that data is being in excel sheet, during search proceeding nsari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved f drive is accepted by Shri Imran Ansari b pted that this pen drive is containing dat in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari exp by him. Shri Imran Ansari’s this acceptan ct that the said data was retrieved f
Shri Imran Ansari and not from any o
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
8
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
rwala group entities, oter and director Shri loyee of Rubberwala inum Mall” project of ong others, statement ates during search as g other, residence (at g, Agripada, Mumbai was covered under also recorded on oath said statement dt.
about his roles and astructure Ltd (RHIL).
been working with ia handling sale and of M/s. Rubberwala
13 & 14 of the said f the sale of shops in her about the price ponse to Q. no. 15
shops contains cash hese components are HIL and Promoter of nsari, in response to ri Tabrez Shaikh, are ponse to Q. no. 17 of ained by him in excel maintained by Shri gs at the residence of from his possession.
belonging to him and ta maintained for the plained that this data nce also corroborates from the residential office of Rubberwala

ascertained that the data is being maint excel file namely “consolidated 1 2 3 bala different name viz “Master”, “Payment” a maintained. It is also found out that in r said project, comprehensive data is being and in this regard, it is important to me o elaborate that the data in the said shee i Imran Ansari has explained all 98 colum planation of each and every column by ort the fact that the he was maintaining ld explain all these columns with relevan in response to Question no. 22, 23 and eaning and relevant of each and every c name of ‘Raj Bhai Jain’/‘Raj BhaiJain( ntered. Further, these 27 shops are sta e booked by the assessee only. Also, ctor and Promoter of the RHIL, while earch proceedings on 19.08.2021 catego ade by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confi be true byconfirming facts stated by Shr t is also important to note here that bove i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 sho ng the frequency of updating the said e
, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this y when a payment is received either in nnel). The column A to AR of the sheet “M ill 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the sa updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in s the parties to ShriAbrar Ahmed (who to be a person handing cash for the hmed, after receiving the cash confirms t the diariesand the said excel file. Such de upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran nt to note here that Shri Imran Ansari a with the buyers on the numbers save ed, the number, for the shops for whic sh component, is mentioned as 989219
wn number. Thus, it makes clear that fo
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
9
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
tained by Shri Imran ance”. In the said file nd “Cheque” etc. are respect of the sale of g maintained in these ention that the sheet t is spread across 98
mns of “Master” sheet y Shri Imran Ansari g the said data and nce and purpose. Shri
24, has explained in column. In column B,
(I.S)’, total 27 shops ated (by Shri Imran
ShriTabrez Ahmed deposing statement orically confirmed the rmed the data of the ri Imran Ansari in his the phone number ops, is of Shri Rajesh excel file/sheet, Shri s sheet is updated on n cash or cheque (or Master” are stated to aid excel file are also n the above response o during the search
Rubberwala Group).
to Shri Imran Ansari etailed mechanism in Ansari on oath. It is also used to call and ed in his data. As ch the assessee has 96071, which is the or the cash payment part, for all t follow up with 10. We also noticed of Rajesh Jain in 3950/Mum/2023 on 12. The appe relief granted shops purcha assessee. The identical issue also. Followin issue.
13. In the ap payment of R
CIT(A) is being
14. We notice commercial p of search con details of ca employee of R from the buye
However, the Rubberwala g
2020-21. The 15. The ld A.R party stateme per the depos were given acknowledged such diary w conducted in stands dispro party stateme same. The AO despite being various case deleted.
ITA No.

the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Im h Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only…………
that the decision of the Coordinate Benc
ITA No. 3842& 3841 & ITA No. 3
n the identical facts is reproduced herein eal filed by the revenue for AY 2020-21 i d by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash paym ased by others cannot be assessed in e decision rendered by us in AY 2018-19
e on merits in the earlier paragraphs wou ng the same, we affirm the order passed ppeal filed by the assessee, the addit
Rs.18,64,200/- in respect of purchase of s g assailed.
ed earlier that the assessee had purch remises developed by Rubberwala group nducted in their hands, incriminating d ash collected on sale of various shop
Rubberwala group confirmed that the cas ers of shops. However, the assessee deni e AO relied upon the materials fou group and accordingly made addition of R
LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same.
R submitted that the addition was made ent and documents found from the premis sition made by the employee of Rubberwa a diary, in which, the details of c d. The Ld A.R submitted the search offic with the assessee during the course his hands. Hence the statement so giv oved. He submitted that the AO has simp ent without bringing any independent ma
O also did not provide the opportunity o g asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
10
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
mran Ansari used to …………
ch of ITAT in the case
954,3952,3951 and below:
is with regard to the ments relating to the n the hands of the 9 and 2019-20 on an uld apply in this year d by LdCIT(A) on this tion of alleged cash shop confirmed by Ld hased a shop in the p. During the course ocuments containing ps were found. The sh has been collected ied payment of cash.
nd in the case of Rs.18,64,200/- in AY on the basis of third ses of third party. As ala group, the buyers cash received were cials did not find any of search operation ven by the employee mply relied upon third aterial to support the of cross examination y placing reliance on addition should be 16. We heard made the add party and als third party. N statement so such paymen examination t assessee. Un addition of R take support f in the case
No.3265/Mum decided as un
17. We also examine the p had placed re of Andaman
(2015)(62 tax examine is a to violation of said decision present case.
11. From the above facts and rightly dec of the present case a therefore the said de well. Moreover, the cash over and abo assessee with any o and even no evidenc of the assessee has money’.
12. Although it has had paid on money the seized material the copy of statemen
13. Therefore, in ou cannot be considere
ITA No.

d Ld D.R and perused the record. We no dition on the basis of evidence found in t so on the basis of deposition made by No corroborative material was brought on given, which is mandatory when the a nt. Further, the AO also did not provide to the assessee, even after the said reque nder these set of facts, we are of the view
Rs.18,64,200/- cannot be sustained. In t from the decision rendered by SMC bench e of Naren
Premchang
Nagda vs m/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an nder:- notice that the AO did not provide o persons from Rubberwala group, on whos eliance upon. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
Timber Industries vs. Commissioner xmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing o serious flaw and it will make the order n f principle of natural justice. We are of the n of Hon‟ble Supreme Court shall apply e we find that the Coordinate bench has cided the issue in favour of the assessee are also identical with the facts of Rajesh ecision will be application on the facts of assessee categorically denied having p ove the agreement value. The AO has of the material found during the search o ce or seized document has been referred s been explicitly mentioned on account been claimed in the order of assessmen
, but again no such statement has been /documents /pendrive was confronted nt of Key person was confronted.
ur view, the information if any found i d as ‘credible evidence’, unless they hav
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
11
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
otice that the AO has the premises of third the employee of the record to support the assessee denies any opportunity of cross est was made by the w that the impugned this regard, we may h of Mumbai Tribunal
.
ITO
(IT Appeal identical issue was opportunity to cross se statements the AO t has held in the case r of Central Excise opportunity to cross nullity, as it amounts e view that the above y to the facts of the s consider the same e and since the facts h Jain’s (supra) case, f the present case as paid any amount in s neither confronted on Rubberwala group d to where any name t of paying any ‘on- nt that the assessee n confronted, neither to the assessee nor in the pendrive etc., ve been corroborated with any other evide material, if any, bas view, it hampers the 14. As far as the inf found from the pos assessment, during therefore, in the abs of pendrive are corre in cash, no additi reassessment procee pendrive was not ch warranted in the cas decision in case
(Assessment Year : 2
the issue in favour herein below:
10. I have co
Undisputedly, alleged paym search and se related perso has not discu available on assessee to M notice dated
Officer in the are in the form the employee section 132(4
Promoter of th prospective b further, in the March 2014, S in cash towa two pieces of record which for purchase assessment s to provide him recorded und
ITA No.

ence. Since the assessee was not provid sed on which notice u/s 153 of the Act, e primary and fundamental requirement of formation claimed in pendrive is concerne ssession of the assessee but was fou the search and seizure conducted in the sence of corroborative evidence to establi ect and authenticated to the extent asse on can be made and even otherwise edings the veracity and reliability of the hecked or tested. Therefore, in such a sce se of assessee. Reliance in this regard ha of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA n
2007–08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of assessee and the relevant portion onsidered rival submissions and perused
, the genesis of the addition made of ` 4
ment of on–money in cash towards purcha eizure operation conducted in case of Hira ons. Though, in the assessment order th ussed in detail the nature of incriminating record to indicate payment of on–mon
M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, fr
4th March 2015, which is reproduced assessment order, it appears that the inc m of pen drive found and seized from th es of Hiranandani Group and a statem
4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hirana he Group, wherein, the details of on– mon buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns e statement recorded under section 132(4
Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted rds sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is cle f evidences the Assessing Officer had n demonstrates that the assessee had pa of the flat. It is further relevant to stage itself the assessee has requested t m with all adverse materials and full t der section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Ni
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
12
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
ded with the adverse t, was issued, in our of natural justice.
ed, the same was not und as per order of e case of third party ish that the contents essee paid ‘onmoney’
e during the entire data recorded in the enario no addition is as been placed on the no.1665/Mum./2018
of ITAT had decided is being reproduced d material on record.
42 lakh on account of ase of a flat lies in a anandani Group and he Assessing Officer g material / evidence ney in cash by the rom the show cause d by the Assessing criminating materials e residence of one of ment recorded under andani, Director and ney paid by buyers /
are mentioned and (4) of the Act on 14th d receipt of on–money ear that except these no other evidence on id on–money in cash o observe, from the the Assessing Officer text of the statement iranjan Hiranandani.

The assessee cross–examin statements w not acceded t aforesaid iss
Commissione directed the materials / d of on–money.
2017, a copy clear that the there is no m adverse mate assessee as Thus, from th
` 42 lakh m complying wi natural justic
Officer intend against the a materials to t rebut / cont assessment o upon the stat the disputed prima–facie a provided the f the assessee and other per in gross viola of law. In this Bench, in Nik addition mad
11. Even othe the following addition on a drive found d recorded und contained in t pen drive was ITA No.

e had also requested the Assessing Office ne Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and o were relied upon. Apparently, this request to by the Assessing Officer. When the a sue before the first appellate auth r (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July
Assessing Officer to provide the as ocumentary evidences available with him
However, on a perusal of the remand rep y of which is at Page–53 of the paper b e Assessing Officer has completely avo mention whether the assessee was pr erial and if, not so, whether he has p per the directions of the learned Com he aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious ade on account of on–money payment ith the primary and fundamental requ ce. It is well settled proposition of law t ds to utilize any adverse material for assessee he is required to not only co the assessee but also offer him a reaso tradict the contents of the adverse ma order reveals that the Assessing Office tement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hira addition. However, it is the allegation of appears to be correct, that the Assess full text of such statement recorded and an opportunity to cross–examine Shri Ni rsons whose statements were relied upon ation of rules of natural justice and again s context, I may refer to the decision of t khil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the a e cannot be sustained.
erwise also, the addition made is unsus reasons. As discussed earlier in the account of on–money is the information c during the search and seizure operation der section 132(4) of the Act. As rega the pen drive, it is the contention of the as s not found from the possession of the as Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
13
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
er for allowing her to ther parties whose of the assessee was assessee took up the hority, the learned
2016, had clearly ssessee all adverse m indicating payment port dated 23th June book, it is very much oided the issue and rovided with all the rovided them to the mmissioner (Appeals).
s that the addition of t in cash is without uirement of rules of that if the Assessing r deciding an issue nfront such adverse onable opportunity to aterial. Further, the er has heavily relied anandani, for making f the assessee, which sing Officer has not has also not allowed iranjan Hiranandani, n. This, in my view, is st the basic principle he Tribunal, Mumbai aforesaid reason, the stainable because of order, the basis for contained in the pen n and the statement ards the information ssessee that the said ssessee but in course of search an Therefore, in a contents of th assessee paid
69B of the Ac recorded und made any ref corroborative cash, no add submissions o in the pen dri from Shri Nir factum of pay doubt or susp enquiry / inv and material assessee ove
Assessing Off record to prov the assessee money in cas of dispute c
Hiranandani
(supra) has he
15. Reliance has als
5561/Mum/2018 (A 6. I have hea addition for o corroborative upon some st the touchston
Kalyana sund record to sugg the builder’s
Evidence Act aside the ord deleted.
16. In the case of M
Year: 2011-12, wher
ITA No.

nd seizure operation conducted in cas absence of further corroborative evidence he pen drive are correct and authentic to d on–money in cash, no addition can be ct. Further contention of the assessee is t der section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranja eference to the assessee, therefore, in a evidence to establish that assessee ha dition can be made. I find substantial m of the assessee. In my view, neither the in ive nor the statement recorded under sec ranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclu yment of on–money by the assessee. At b picion against the conduct of the assess vestigation to find out and bring on reco l to conclusively prove the payment of r and above the declared sale considera fficer has failed to bring any such evid ve the payment of on–money by the asse from the very beginning has stoutly den h. Notably, while dealing with a case inv concerning similar transaction with a Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri A eld as under:– ……..
so been placed in the case of Monika An A.Y. 2011-12) whereas coordinate bench h ard both the parties and perused the re on-money payment has been done in th material found from assessee. The add tatement of the builder. Such additions ar ne of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in th dasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover gest that so called electronic evidence col office is compliant with the requiremen regarding admissibility of electronic ev ders of the authority below and direct
Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, ITA No.1553/M rein the coordinate bench has held as und
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
14
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
se of a third party.
e to establish that the o the extent that the made under section that in the statement n Hirandani has not absence of any other as paid on–money in merit in the aforesaid nformation contained tion 132(4) of the Act usively establish the best, they can raise a see triggering further ord the relevant fact of on–money by the ation. Apparently, the dence / material on essee. More so, when nied payment of on–
volving similar nature another concern of Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT nand Gupta I.T.A. No.
held as under:
ecord. I find that the his case without any dition is solely based re not sustainable on he case of CIT vs P.V r there is nothing on llected by revenue at nt of section 65B of vidence. Hence, I set that the addition be M/2021 Assessment der:

sole issue raised in this appeal is covered e co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal additi nable. Because the addition is made me ade by one Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the p section 132(4) of the Act without any corr any material seized during the course of Act can only be used against Mr. Sura ot against the assessee without any corro ave been recovered from the office of eing not proved under section 65 of the matter, addition made by the AO and s sustainable in the eyes of law, hence or y, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed roposition, we place reliance upon the de garwal, ITA No. 2573/Mum/2017, ITO
2574/Mum/2017 Heena Dashrath Jha
Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs.
.
ds we also noticed that no statement w e of the persons, whose statements we examination. Even the extract of the sta er does not indicate the name of the asses during the course of assessment also f s examine of the witnesses, whose sta e which resulted in ‘breach of principles e is being placed upon the decision of Ho aman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reporte it has been held that ‘failure to give examine witness, whose statements are les of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw lowance made solely on third party her scrutiny and denying the opportunity nders the addition/disallowance bad in la
R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissioner of 0 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under:
Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
15
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
failed to provide the atements were relied of natural justice’. In on'ble Supreme Court ed in (2015)281 CTR e the assessee the e relied upon, results w which renders the 15), it was held that information without of cross examination aw’
f Income-tax, Mumbai
:

In the light of account paye least that th opportunity to material soug of assessmen goes to root assessment
Commissione bound to be p permitting him relied upon b examine the d and disclose m
22. Taking into co prepositions as disc consequently these g
7.3 From the forego in the present cas statements recorded group, without any c on-money by the ass cannot be sustained
7.4 Respectfully foll the case of Pravin K the same search, th being no distinguishi the addition made b learned CIT(A) is un to be deleted. The gro
ITA No.

f the fact that the money was advance ee cheque and was repaid vide accoun he Assessing Officer should have don o the assessee to meet the case against ght to be used against him in arriving befo nt. This not having been done, the denia of the matter and strikes at the very and, therefore, renders the orders r (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable provided with the material used against h m to cross examine the deponents who by him. Despite the request seeking an deponents and furnish the assessee with material, these were denied to him.
nsideration the entire facts and circum cussed by us above, we direct the AO to grounds raised by the assessee are allow oing discussion, it is evident th e has been made merely on d during the search in the ca corroborative material establish sessee. In our considered view in law.
lowing the decision of the Coord
Khetaram Purohit (supra), wh he same project and identical f ing feature brought to our notic by the Assessing Officer and su sustainable. Accordingly, the s ounds raised by the assessee are Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
16
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
ed apparently by the nt payee cheque the e was to grant an him by providing the ore passing the order l of such opportunity y foundation of the s passed by the e. The assessee was him apart from being ose statements were opportunity to cross copies of statements mstances and legal o delete the addition, wed.”
hat the addition n the basis of ase of the RHIL hing payment of w, such addition dinate Bench in hich pertains to facts, and there ce, we hold that ustained by the same is directed e allowed.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA No.

rded hereinabove shall apply m ls of the assessee involving i e set of facts.
all the three appeals filed by th ced in the open Court on 12/0
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit
17
8452 to 8454/MUM/2025
mutatis mutandis identical issues he assessee are 03/2026. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai