Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals concern additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C based on seized documents alleging 'on-money' payments for a property purchase. The AO's additions were upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessees, husband and wife, appealed these orders.
Held
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, primarily WhatsApp chats and Excel sheets, constituted 'dumb documents' lacking authenticity and corroborative linkage to establish cash transactions by the assessee. The AO failed to produce direct or corroborative evidence, and the assessee proved the entire consideration was paid through banking channels. Crucially, the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine key individuals.
Key Issues
Whether 'on-money' payments for a property purchase can be added to income based on unauthenticated seized documents without direct evidence or cross-examination of crucial witnesses, and whether the AO discharged the burden of proof under Section 69B.
Sections Cited
153C, 144C(13), 144C(5), 69B, 132, 69, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke Sanjay Mehta DCIT, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur. Vs. C-36, Dev Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ANXPM9906F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR 07/08/2025 lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing: ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These two appeals are filed by the assessees, Sanjay Mehta and Urvashi Mehta, against the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 153C,r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur ('the Act') for Assessment Year 2018–19. In both such appeals, the respective orders of assessment were passed, by AO, after considering the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) issued separately for both the assessees, under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 19.12.2024.
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO assumed jurisdiction in the case of the assessee under Section 153C without recording proper satisfaction, alleging payment of on-money for the purchase of a flat, and without providing the satisfaction note as recorded by the AO of the searched person and the underlying documents on the basis of which allegations were levelled against the assessee. The action of the Id. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. The proceedings initiated under Section 153C are liable to be quashed as being illegal and void ab initio.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in giving directions to the ld. AO for making additions of Rs. 69,32,250/- to the income of the assessee under Section 69B, alleging it to be on- money paid by the assessee for the purchase of flat. The action of the Id. DRP/AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire additions of Rs. 69,32,250/-.
3. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.
2.1 In appeal of Urvashi Mehta [ITA No. 200/JPR/2025], the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO assumed jurisdiction in the case of the assessee under Section 153C without recording proper satisfaction, alleging payment of on-money for the purchase of a flat, and & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur without providing the satisfaction note as recorded by the AO of the searched person and the underlying documents on the basis of which allegations were levelled against the assessee. The action of the Id. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. The proceedings initiated under Section 153C are liable to be quashed as being illegal and void ab initio.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in giving directions to the ld. AO for making additions of Rs. 69,32,250/- to the income of the assessee under Section 69B, alleging it to be on-money paid by the assessee for the purchase of flat. The action of the Id. DRP/AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire additions of Rs. 69,32,250/-.
3. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”
Both the cases of Sanjay Mehta and Urvashi Mehta were heard by us together, as both assessees are husband and wife. Since the factual circumstances relevant to both cases are identical, we, for the sake of brevity, are disposing of both appeals by way of this common order. We hereby take the case of Sanjay Mehta [ ] as the lead case. Our observations in the case of Sanjay Mehta shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of Urvashi Mehta [ITA No. 200/JPR/2025], who is the wife of Sanjay Mehta.
The facts emerging from the record indicate that a search and seizure action was undertaken by the Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the Act on the "Om Kothari Group" of Jaipur on 13.07.2020. During this & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur operation, the residential premises of key individuals associated with the group were also searched, leading to the discovery of certain incriminating materials and documents. Mobile phones and other digital devices were seized, and images of these mobile phones, laptops, and personal computers were taken by income tax department, during the course of search. Statements from key individuals, including Shri Vimal Jain, the accountant of the group at Jaipur and an employee of the Om Kothari Group, were recorded.
The seized materials and documents reflected that the group, along with other persons and associates, was engaged in the business of real estate and had undertaken transactions involving unaccounted receipts from the sale of flats in the "Pallacia" project.Based on these incriminating materials and documents, the AO issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after duly recording satisfaction in the case of the assessees on 27.03.2023. Notices were issued for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22 under Section 153C.
Subsequently, the AO alleged that the assessee, along with his wife, Urvashi Mehta, who had jointly booked a property identified as Flat No. D- 61, Pallacia Building, A-2, Prithvi Raj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, had paid & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur "on-money" for the purchase of the flat amounting to Rs. 1,38,64,500. Given the joint ownership, additions of Rs. 69,32,250 each were made separately in the cases of Sanjay Mehta and his wife, Urvashi Mehta. Initially, these additions were proposed for multiple assessment years, from 2015-16 to 2021-22 (except A.Y. 2019-20) while passing the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1).Against these draft assessment orders, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP, through its order dated 19.12.2024 under Section 144C(5) of the Act, directed the AO to consolidate the entire addition of Rs. 69,32,250 in the hands of assessee specifically for the assessment year 2018–19. Similar such direction was given by DRP in the case of Urvashi Mehta.
The relevant extracts of the DRP’s findings are reproduced hereunder:
“5.1 DRP DISCUSSIONS: 5.1.1 The Panel members have gone through the submission of assessee as well as AO's observations in DAO, satisfaction note by Ld. AO and other documents relevant to the case. The following observations were made by the members: A. Evidence gathered during the search operation in OM Kothari Group included WhatsApp chats, handwritten notes, and statements from the key persons clearly suggest systemlc receipt of cash payments ("on money") by the group towards the sale of flats in the "PALLACIA" project. a. In this regard, this fact is established by the statement of Shri Vimal Jain taken during the course of search action wherein he had accepted to receive cash amount/on & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur money on various occasions from various persons on behalf of all the three directors of OM Kothari Group. b. Further, Panel has also gone through one image pasted in the draft assessment order, having “Details as on 17.04.2013” of flats sold in Pallacia project and found from mobile of Shri Vishal Kothari during the course of search action. c. This image apparently contained a list of buyers of flats at Pallacia project and subsequent payment to be received by the group towards sale of flats. In the list, on the left side of S. No. column, actual hand-written rate of flat is recorded which appeared to be bifurcated rate for cash and cheque payments made by flat buyers. In that image at S1. No. 24, having an entry in the name of "SANJAY MEHTA D-61" and on the left side the rate of flat 10000 + 2370 is recorded. This apparently suggests that the assessee had agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per square feet rate through cheque and Rs. 2370/- per square feet through cash. AO in his draft order initially stated that total purchase consideration & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur of flat would be Rs.7,23,64,500/- (Rs. 5850 * 12370) however, without verifying the bank channel payment details, AO focussed towards the addition of Rs. 38,25,216/- proposed on the basis of percentage completion method towards addition for cash paid as ‘on money’. Relevant portion of AO's observation is reproduced as under: d. In view of the AO's observations at preceding paras, the Panel members observe that assessing officer, after considering all evidences found during search operation, arrived at purchase consideration value of flat, which in this case is Rs. 7,23,64,500/- [Rs.10,000 per sq. ft. + 2370 sq. ft.], then next step for AO should have been to verify the source of such payments even if stated to have been made through banking channels and & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur then should have examined the cash transaction value. So, it was incumbent upon the AO to verify the sources of payments made by cheque, but on the contrary, he simply added the cash component value @2370 per sqm. e. As per submissions of the assessee, the sale price of flat was Rs.5,95,00,000/-+ plus other expenditure i.e. Membership Fee, Annual Maintenance Charge & corpus fund and service Tax etc and accordingly, assessee claimed to make a payment of Rs. 6,20,99,361/- for the said flat. Further, for purchase of flat following payments through banking channel as per details below was claimed by the assessee: f. It is observed that AO in his assessment order, stated that the amount paid through the banking channel was verifiable from the bank entries dated 08.03.2013, 08.03.2013, 10.08.2014, 14.07.2015, 01.07.2017 & 01.07.2017. However, no remark in respect of the source of the same and verifiability from the bank statements was commented upon by the AO. The assessee argued that entire consideration for purchase of flat was made by the assessee trough bank channel only and no cash payment was made by him, however, he did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim and no details in respect of source of funds in respect of payment made by her spouse was either produced before the Panel members. The members also observed that, the assessee did not furnish nature of her husband's bank account used for property transactions whether it was NRE account or saving accounts and also not provided any source of income for making such payments thereof. In this regard, the Panel members during the course of hearing asked the assessee to substantiate his claim of payment of cheque by furnishing registry of flat along with his back statements and source of funding thereof for purchase of flat at Pallacia project. However, assessee did not furnish any of the above-mentioned details/supporting documents. In absence of above documents, source of payment of Rs. 6,20,99,361/- made by assessee could not be ascertained and remains unverified. g. Further, as this exercise would perhaps result in enhancement of tax liability of the assessee for assessment year 1.e. 2018-19, so keeping in line with Principle of natural justice, an enhancement notice dated 5/12/2024 was issued to the assessee by the DRP to provide a fair opportunity to present her case by furnishing bank statements, registry of flat along with source of funds thereof before panel members within stipulated time i.e. 06.12.2024. However, in response only incomplete information viz- copy of bank & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur statements were submitted but neither the details o1 source of the funds nor the purchase deed was submitted. h. Based on the above discussions held in pre paras, the Panel conclusively holds that the total consideration for the flat was Rs.7,23,64,500/- determined at a rate of Rs. 12370 per sqm (Rs.10,000 Cheque + Rs. 2370 Cash) and according to evidences found during search operation, the assessee along with his spouse paid only Rs. 5,85,00,000/- (Rs. 10,000 * 5850) sq. ft. and balance payments details of Rs.1,38,64,500/-(7,23,64,500- 5,85,00,000) is still not verified due to non-furnishing of details of source of payment and bank statement of assessee (as already discussed in pre para). Accordingly, in the considered opinion of the Panel the balance payment of Rs. 1,38,64,500/- (Rs.7,23,54,500/- - Rs.5,85,00,000/-) for which assessee offered no explanation, was paid by assessee in cash to the developer as ‘on money’ and liable to be added in the income of assessee. Further, the Panel notes that, since it is joint property and in absence of registered deed, the proportionate share is being taken as 50Oñ each and the payment of cash should be divided at half each i.e. Rs. 69,32,250/- each. Accordingly, AO is directed to make an addition of Rs. 69,32,250 (Rs. 1,38,65,500/- divided by 2] towards payment of cash as on money to the developer. i. Further, the Panel also noted that the AO in his draft assessment order stated that the flats construction work in Pallacia project went for long i.e. from FY 2011 to 2021 and the cash consideration paid by the assessee to the builder/developer being unaccounted and not entered into books of account, are not verifiable, hence their payment date could not be exactly determined. The AO further stated that it would be reasonable to take payment date by assessee in consonance with construction linked revenue recognition of Kothari Group i.e. percentage completion method as adopted by group for real estate project. The relevant portion of AO's observation is reproduced as under: j. The assessee in his submission contended that no evidence was produced by the Department which could substantiate the payment of “on money” by the assessee. Though the contention raised by assessee is not on merit, the Panel members opine that the digital data retrieved from the mobile phones of key individuals within the OM Kothari Group during the search operation holds significant evidentiary value. The fact was further strengthened by the statement of Sri Vimal Jain (one of the key persons of the group) who admitted receiving cash unaccounted money from various persons/customers in the Pallacia project. Further, analysis of the extracted data revealed that the assessee had made cash payments for the purchase of property. In such a scenario contention of assessee is not tenable. k. The assessee also contested the calculation methodology adopted by the learned Assessing Officer. Upon examining the issue, the Panel concludes that the AO had improperly applied the percentage completion method to the assessee. This method of revenue recognition is typically applicable only to capital-intensive businesses and was not appropriate in this case. The Panel further hold that in absence of registered sale deed, only source to ascertain the date when rights/ownership of the flat was transferred to assessee is its payment details, which in this instant case is 01.07.2017 as per the payment details submitted by the assessee.
& 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur l. Accordingly, it would be prudent to hold that the cash payment was made by the assessee around/prior to this date. As per payment details furnished by the assessee, the last payment towards purchase of flat was made on 01.07.2017 and this payment detail was duly verified by the bank entries as mentioned by the AO. Accordingly, the Panel opines that Assessee had made all the cash payments before this date i.e. 01.07.2017, and same should be taxed in relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2018-19. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the assessee had made all the payments towards purchase of flat at Pallacia Project before July 2017. Accordingly, any cash payments made would be logically taxable in the relevant assessment year i.e. 2018-19. 5.1.2 Accordingly, the Panel directs the AO to make an addition of Rs. 69,32,250/- u/s 69B of the IT Act as unexplained investment on account of ’on money’ paid by the assessee to purchase the said property in the property. Further, any addition in this regard made in other AYs 2015-16, 2016-17,2017-18, 2020-21 and 2021-22 should be deleted. 5.1.3 The Panel makes a notable observation that it was incumbent upon the AO to carry out verification of source of investment and necessary details should have been obtained through the third-party verification. Although the observations of the Panel are of no consequence at this juncture, still thePanel considers it imperative to make a mention in this regard.
In compliance with the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment orders under Section 153C read with Section 144C(13) on 23.01.2025and 27.01.2025 for the assessee and Urvashi Mehta. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
Before us the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the entire addition made by AO was based purely on suspicion and unsubstantiated evidence. It was argued that AO's reliance on WhatsApp screenshots and Excel sheets seized from third parties constituted "dumb documents," lacking authenticity, admissibility, and evidentiary value. No direct evidence or corroborative material indicating payment & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur of any 'on-money' by the assessee had been presented by the AO. The ld. AR further submitted that the entire consideration for the property was paid through banking channels, fully documented and reflected in the registered sale agreement. It was emphasized that no cash trail or corroborating statements linking the assessee to the alleged cash payments had been established. Ld. AR also contended that the assessee was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon by AO, resulting in a gross violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the addition unsustainable. It was asserted by the ld. AR of the assessee that uncorroborated electronic evidence or loose documents without proper authentication cannot form the basis for such substantial additions. Ld. AR submitted that the AO failed to discharge the primary burden required under Section 69B to conclusively prove that unaccounted investments were made. Thus, the ld. AR argued that the addition was legally untenable and prayed for its deletion. The detailed submissions as filed by the ld. AR of the assessee are reproduced hereunder:
I. It is respectfully submitted that Shri Sanjay Mehta and Smt. Urvashi Mehta are husband and wife, and identical additions have been made in their respective cases. The alleged 'on-money' payment has been equally divided between the husband and wife. Accordingly, consolidated submissions are being filed before the Hon'ble Bench for the sake of brevity and convenience. Since the factual position in both the cases is identical, the case of Shri Sanjay Mehta is being treated as the lead case, and the submissions made therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of Smt. Urvashi Mehta as well II. Assessee, an individual, has been residing outside India for many years and has been a non-resident under Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).
& 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur III. Assessee along with his wife, Smt. Urvashi Mehta, had booked an immovable property, being Flat No. D-61, Pallacia Building, A-2, Prithvi Raj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan, having Super Built Up Area of 5,850 sq. feet (“the flat”)[Hereinafter Pallacia Building is referred to as “the project”]. IV. The agreed purchase consideration was Rs. 6,20,99,361 for the 5,850 sq. ft. flat as verifiable in the ‘Statement cum Acknowledgement of receipt of consideration’ [PB: 21]. The break-up of which is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Basic Selling Price (Excluding service tax) A 59,500,000 Less: Rebate for impact assessment (Discount) B 2,050,000 C [A-B] 57,450,000 Add: Corpus Fund Deposit (Rs. 250 per sq. ft x 5,850 sq. ft) D 1,462,500 Add: Deposit for Maintainence (Rs. 50 per sq. ft x 5,850 sq. ft) E 292,500 Add: Club membership F 500,000 Total Consideration (Excluding Service Tax) G [C+D+E+F] 59,705,000 H Service tax on Basic Selling Price After Rebate 2,319,361 I Service tax on club membership fees 75,000 Total Consideration J [F+G+H+I] 62,099,361 Consideration Per Sq. Ft K [J/5850 Sq. Ft] 10,615 V. The ‘Statement cum Acknowledgement of receipt of consideration’ explicitly records the agreed price as Rs. 10,615 per sq. ft. (for 5,850 sq. ft.). The assessee, as mentioned in the above table, secured a discount of Rs. 20,50,000 (amounting to approx. Rs. 350 per sq. ft.) on the listed price, thus arriving at the effective rate of Rs. 10,615 per sq. ft. Thus, if such discount is not considered, the gross rate would amount to Rs. 10,965 per sq. ft. VI. Entire consideration for purchase of the flat by the assessee, along with his wife, was paid by the assessee through banking channel, details of which are as under: - Date of Payment Amount Paid Bank Account No. (Rs.) 8-Mar-13 2,164,890 HSBC 127113033007 1-Apr-13 6,649,305 HSBC 127113033007 10-Aug-13 2,955,678 HSBC 127113033007 5-Aug-14 3,604,806 HSBC 127113033007 14-Jul-15 6,058,043 HSBC 127113033007 1-Jul-17 6,170,626 HSBC 127113033007 1-Jul-17 33,921,513 HSBC 127113033007 TDS Deposited 574,500 Total 62,099,361 VII. Aforementioned factual position is undisputed by the lower authorities. VIII. JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur a. Jurisdiction in this case was assumed under Section 153C pursuant to a search on the Om Kothari Group, to which the developer belonged. b. Subsequently, Assessing Officer (“ld. AO”) recorded Satisfaction Note [PB: 1-5] and issued notice, dated 27.03.2023 under Section 153C to the assessee, for AY 2015–16 to AY 2021–22, including the year under consideration. IX. DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER a. In the Draft Assessment Order dated 30.03.2024, ld. AO proposed to tax an alleged “on-money” investment relating to the flat. The allegation (drawn from certain WhatsApp chats and internal records of the developer group) was that a total of Rs 1,38,64,500, in cash, had been paid for the flat, over and above the payment made through banking channel. b. Ld. AO attributed, for the purpose of making addition, this Rs. 1,38,64,500 equally to the assessee and his wife – i.e. Rs. 69,32,250 in the hands of Shri Sanjay Mehta and Rs. 69,32,250 in the hands of Smt. Urvashi Mehta. c. Furthermore, the draft order spread this amount over the relevant years based on the project’s stage of completion of the developer. Accordingly, alleged on-money was apportioned across different assessment years (AY 2015–16 to AY 2021–22). The table below, reproduced from the draft order and related computations, illustrates the allocation of the Rs. 1,38,64,500 on-money (Rs. 69,32,250 each for assessee and his wife) over the years (Page 22 of the draft order): Proposed On-Money Proposed Assessme Stage of Addition in Smt. Recognized in Addition in nt Year Completion Renu Sharma’s Year (Total) Assessee’s Hands Hands Rs. 2015–16 55.18% Rs. 38,25,216 Rs. 38,25,216 76,50,432 Rs. 2016–17 59.34% Rs. 2,88,380 Rs. 2,88,380 5,76,760 Rs. 2017–18 61.72% Rs. 1,64,988 Rs. 1,64,988 3,29,976 Rs. 2018–19 70.02% Rs. 5,75,377 Rs. 5,75,377 11,50,754 68.03% (due to escalation 2019–20 Rs. 0 Rs. 0 Rs. 0 of cost estimation of the project) Rs. 2020–21 77.61% Rs. 5,26,158 Rs. 5,26,158 10,52,316 100% Rs. 2021–22 (forced to Rs. 15,52,131 Rs. 15,52,131 31,04,262 100%) Total (Completion) Rs. Rs. 69,32,250 Rs. 69,32,250 d. Draft assessment orders for the aforementioned years including the year under consideration were subsequently passed under Section 144C(1) for the assessee (and similarly for the wife of the assessee) on 30.03.2024, proposing the above additions. These draft orders were duly served on 31.03.2024. X. Dispute Resolution Panel a. The assessee, as well as his wife, filed objections against the draft orders before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, New Delhi, in accordance with Section 144C. Ld. DRP heard the combined objections of the assessee and the assessee’s wife and issued its directions on 19.12.2024. Key findings of ld. DRP and the assessee’s counter-arguments are discussed in a later section below. b. Ld. DRP directed ld. AO to make the entire addition of Rs. 69,32,250 each in the hands of the assessee and his wife. It was further directed to make the entire addition in the assessment year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2018-19. XI. Final Assessment Order a. Pursuant to ld. DRP’s directions, ld. AO passed the Final Assessment Order under Section 153C r.w.s. 144C(13) on 23.01.2025. b. In this final order, ld. AO assessed the addition of Rs. 69,32,250 alleged on- money each in the hands of the assessee and his wife. c. Aggrieved, the assessee is now before the Hon’ble ITAT. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
ADDITION OF Rs.69,32,250 AS ALLEGED ON-MONEY GROUND NO. 2 [Submissions apropos Ground No. 1 have been made subsequently]
1. SUBMISSIONS 1.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was confronted with two screenshots, purportedly seized during the search on the Om Kothari Group. These screenshots were relied upon by ld. AO as the sole basis for alleging that the assessee made an unaccounted cash payment of Rs. 69,32,250 towards purchase of the flat. 1.2. These screenshots have been annexed to the Paper Book [forming part of the satisfaction note] and are summarised below:
& 201 200 & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur 1.3. Screenshots 1 and 2 Screenshots 1 and 2: Ld. AO has alleged that entry at Sr. No 24 appears to be : Ld. AO has alleged that entry at Sr. No 24 appears to be that of the assessee, and has made the addition on the basis of ‘(10000+237 that of the assessee, and has made the addition on the basis of ‘(10000+2370)’ mentioning that of the assessee, and has made the addition on the basis of ‘(10000+237 on the left side of the table. on the left side of the table. Page No. 3 of Satisfaction Note [PB: 3] Page No. 3 of Satisfaction Note [PB: 3] Page No. 4 of Satisfaction Note [PB: 4] Page No. 4 of Satisfaction Note [PB: 4] L 1.4. It is respectfully submitted that this inference is wholly unwarranted and based on It is respectfully submitted that this inference is wholly unwarranted and based on It is respectfully submitted that this inference is wholly unwarranted and based on an unauthenticated, unverifiable internal document that lacks all characteristics of unauthenticated, unverifiable internal document that lacks all characteristics of unauthenticated, unverifiable internal document that lacks all characteristics of admissible evidence. The screenshot in question is a “dumb document”, both factually and The screenshot in question is a “dumb document”, both factually and The screenshot in question is a “dumb document”, both factually and legally, and its reliance is untenable for the reasons mentioned below. legally, and its reliance is untenable for the reasons mentioned below. 1.5. No Evidence beyond an unsigned “Dumb Document”: No Evidence beyond an unsigned “Dumb Document”: 1.5.i The only “evidence” cited against the assessee is a rough internal The only “evidence” cited against the assessee is a rough internal The only “evidence” cited against the assessee is a rough internal ledger/screenshot supposedly found in a WhatsApp chat of a third party (an employee of ledger/screenshot supposedly found in a WhatsApp chat of a third party (an employee of ledger/screenshot supposedly found in a WhatsApp chat of a third party (an employee of the Om Kothari Group) [PB: 3] [PB: 3]. This document contains an entry “Sanjay Mehta”, which . This document contains an entry “Sanjay Mehta”, which ld. AO has interpreted as cash received at the rate of Rs. 2370/sq. ft. for reted as cash received at the rate of Rs. 2370/sq. ft. for 5,850 sq. ft., reted as cash received at the rate of Rs. 2370/sq. ft. for allegedly paid by the assessee. allegedly paid by the assessee. 1.5.ii Crucially, this screenshot is Crucially, this screenshot is not dated, not signed, and is neither authored by nor not dated, not signed, and is neither authored by nor addressed to the assessee addressed to the assessee. It bears no acknowledgment or reference traceable to the assessee. There is no way to determine when, by whom, or in what context it was created. assessee. There is no way to determine when, by whom, or in what context it was created. assessee. There is no way to determine when, by whom, or in what context it was created.
& 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur 1.5.iii Such unverifiable and self-serving documents, especially when found on third- party devices, have consistently been held to be “dumb documents”. In absence of signature, date, authorship, they carry no evidentiary value. 1.6. Agreed rate by the assessee – Rs. 10,965 per sq. ft. v/s Rate assumed by the ld. AO – Rs. 13,335 per sq. ft 1.6.i It is submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO, based upon an Excel sheet allegedly found during the search conducted on the developer entity, has drawn an inference that the assessee, along with his wife, paid an 'on-money' amounting to Rs. 2,370 per sq. ft. in cash, in addition to Rs. 10,000 per sq. ft. paid through banking channels, towards the purchase of the subject flat. Ld. AO has relied solely on an isolated entry in the Excel sheet stating "10,000 + 2,370" against the assessee’s name, presuming without corroborative evidence that the figure of Rs. 2,370 per sq. ft. represents a cash payment. 1.6.ii However, it is pertinent to highlight the factual position that the assessee finalized the transaction at an approximate total consideration of Rs. 10,965 per sq. ft., entirely transacted through proper banking channels after considering the discount. This clearly contradicts ld. AO’s presumption of bifurcated payments (Rs. 10,000 per sq. ft. through banking and Rs. 2,370 per sq. ft. in cash). 1.6.iii Moreover, ld. AO's calculation alleging total 'on-money' payments amounting to Rs. 1,38,64,500, when added to the actual agreed upon per sq. ft. consideration, yields a hypothetical consideration of approximately Rs. 13,335 per sq. ft. This resultant figure significantly surpasses ld. AO’s own assertion that the developer sold the property at Rs. 12,000 per sq. ft., thereby rendering ld. AO’s assumptions internally inconsistent and contradictory. 1.6.iv Further, it is crucial to consider the fact that the Excel sheet, as acknowledged by ld. AO himself at Page 5 of the Final Order, was prepared by the developer on 17.04.2013 in relation to the initial sale of flats in the Pallacia project. Consequently, reliance on this outdated and preliminary document to establish the transaction finalized by the assessee in July 2017—after a substantial gap and multiple intervening modifications—is manifestly erroneous and legally unsustainable. 1.6.v In view of these glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies, it is submitted that the said Excel sheet, being inherently ambiguous, outdated, and lacking any corroborative evidential value, constitutes a "dumb document". Reliance upon such uncorroborated documentation to substantiate allegations of 'on-money' payments is legally impermissible and unjustifiable. 1.6.vi By ignoring these undisputed facts and offering no supporting data or comparative analysis, ld. DRP has rejected the assessee’s submission on mere & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur conjecture—an approach that is unjustified, unsustainable, and contrary to settled principles that bind revenue authorities to evidence, not speculation. 1.7. Assessee’s Name Nowhere in Statements or Corroborative Evidence: 1.7.i The Department recorded statements of multiple individuals during the search, including Shri Vimal Jain, the accountant of the developer group and Shri Vivek Kothari [PB: 22-69]. None of these individuals named the assessee or his wife as having made any cash payment or as being involved in on-money transactions. 1.7.ii There is no deposition, admission, or confessional statement linking the assessee to any unaccounted cash transaction. 1.8. All Funds Official – No Unaccounted Cash Trail: 1.8.i It is undisputed that the entire purchase consideration of Rs. 6,33,25,500 was paid by the assessee along with his wife exclusively through banking channel. The same is fully documented and corroborated by corresponding bank statements and TDS details. 1.8.ii The addition is thus entirely unbacked by any real-world cash movement, and is premised solely on an isolated, unauthenticated line in a computer printout, with no supporting cash trail whatsoever. 1.8.iii It is pertinent to note that both the assessee and his wife have undisputedly been non-residents for several years and had no source or means for generating cash income in India. Given this undisputed factual position, the onus was squarely upon ld. AO to demonstrate conclusively that the assessee had indeed made the alleged cash payments. This burden has not been discharged at all by the Revenue. The addition, therefore, has been made purely on conjectures and surmises without any concrete evidence or corroboration, rendering it legally unsustainable. 1.9. No Seized Record of Actual Payment or Receipt: 1.9.i There is no receipt, no voucher, no signed acknowledgment, and no cash ledger of the developer acknowledging receipt of Rs. 69.32 lakhs from the assessee. Not a single contemporaneous document evidences that any such payment was ever made. 1.9.ii The rough screenshot being relied upon is, at best, an internal projection or expectation, and not evidence of actual transaction. It is not a record of a concluded financial event. 1.9.iii It is a settled principle that the entries in private records or loose sheets must be supported by tangible corroboration—such as statements, receipts, cash found during search, or actual money trail. None exists in this case. 1.10. No Identification of assessee in Statements of different persons– Absence of Cross-Examination & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur 1.10.i The entire basis relied upon by ld. AO for making the addition of Rs. 69,32,250 to the income of the assessee is the statement of Shri Vimal Jain [PB: 22-62], an employee and accountant of the developer group, wherein he is said to have accepted that cash/on- money was received in the sale of flats in the Pallacia project. However, it is submitted that this statement, even if taken at face value, does not mention the name of the assessee or his wife anywhere. 1.10.ii The statement of Shri Vimal Jain contains general remarks about the practice of accepting on-money in real estate transactions by the developer group. However, there is no reference whatsoever to any cash payment being received from either Shri Sanjay Mehta or Smt. Urvashi Mehta. 1.10.iii There is no assertion in the said statement that: Any on-money was received from the assessee or his wife. Any transaction of cash payment was made by the assessee or his wife in relation to the said flat. 1.10.iv Further, ld. AO has not conducted any independent enquiry on his own, such as recording statements from any employees or promoters of the developer entity specifically in relation to the alleged 'on-money' payment, to corroborate whether any such amount was actually paid by the assessee. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the conclusion drawn by ld. AO is purely conjectural and lacks any credible basis. 1.10.v Crucially, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine either Shri Vimal Jain or Shri Vivek Kothari, whose statements and devices are the alleged source of incriminating material. This constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 1.10.vi Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006) categorically held that denial of cross-examination amounts to denial of fair hearing and is a serious flaw in adjudication. It was held that statements relied upon to draw adverse conclusions must be subjected to cross-examination if so requested. 1.10.vii Here, despite repeated requests [AO Final Order Page 17, Para 7.7], no such opportunity was granted to the assessee. Ld. AO never summoned or examined any person, including those whose statements or materials were being relied upon to implicate the assessee. The entire addition is thus based on untested third-party assertions and unauthenticated documents, without confronting the assessee with any primary or corroborating witness. 1.10.viii In view of the above, it is submitted that the addition suffers from both: Evidentiary infirmity, as there is no direct statement or documentary proof linking the assessee with the alleged on-money; and & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur Fundamental infirmity, due to denial of the right to cross-examination. 1.11. WhatsApp Chats – holding no evidentiary value: 1.11.i The screenshots relied upon by ld. AO/ ld. DRP are nothing more than extracts of WhatsApp chats recovered from mobile phones of employees of the developer group— devices that were neither owned nor controlled by the assessee. 1.11.ii Under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an electronic record (or any paper print-out thereof) is admissible only if the original electronic media is produced or a valid section 65B(4) certificate—specifying the device, the manner of extraction and affirming the record’s integrity—is placed on record. 1.11.iii Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. B.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and reiterated in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [2020] 7 SCC 1has held that “secondary electronic evidence” (such as screenshots) is wholly inadmissible in the absence of such a certificate, and a tribunal cannot look into it for any purpose. No 65B certificate, hash value, or chain-of-custody document has been filed here; consequently, the chat extracts fail at the threshold of admissibility. 1.11.iv In Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, was considered for the purposes of the expression "entries in books of account", "books of account". In this case, which is also known as 'Jain Hawala Diaries case", Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that entries in notebooks are admissible evidence u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act but loose sheets of papers are not "books" and hence entries in loose sheets of papers are not admissible evidence at all. Apex Court came to the conclusion that entries in books of accounts has "probative value" and "corroborative evidence", the Court on the facts came to the conclusion that entries made in Jain Hawala Diaries though admissible u/s. 34, but truthfulness, thereof, was not proved by any independent evidence. 1.11.v In Common Causes v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC), it was held that Entries in loose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers are not “books of account” and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they are in accordance with facts. Entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses. A man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he choose to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. 1.11.vi In the case of Sahitya Housing (P.) Ltd., certain entries were found in Pen-Drive on the basis of which additions were made. Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench held that unsubstantiated material found in the Pen-Drive cannot be & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur considered, in the hands of the assessee, as conclusive evidence, so as to make addition towards unexplained credit. While so holding, it referred to the ratio of decision in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410. 1.11.vii Thus, extracts as relied upon by ld. AO are nothing but dumb documents, not admissible as evidence and on the basis of which no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The aforementioned legal position has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Jaipur Bench in the case of Prakash Chand Kothari, ITA No. 1298/JP/19. [Copy enclosed] 1.12. Onus u/s Section 68 vis-à-vis u/s Section 69 1.12.i Ld. AO has made the addition invoking the provisions of Section 69. For invoking the provisions of Section 69 heavy burden lies on ld. AO to prove:- 1. That investment has taken place, and 2. The investment is owned by the assessee. 1.12.ii It is pertinent to note the difference of burden under Section 68 vis-à-vis Section 69. If a credit entry is found in books of the assessee, entire burden lies on the assessee to prove identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the said creditor. As against this, if any on-money payment is alleged to be in the name of the assessee which as per the Department is not recorded in the books of the assessee, the burden is on the Department to first prove its allegation by way of impeccable evidences. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge such burden the said person has to lead positive evidences. Mere fact that there were certain entries found from records of third party, it is not sufficient to make additions on grounds that assessee had made such payment. Without examining the persons, who allegedly received on-money payment, and without obtaining due confirmations from them, even the factum of investment is not proved. What would be the case of the Department, if the developer for the so-called alleged on-money receipts, refuses to ever having received from the assessee? Without agreeing, if the on- money payment is not proved, what is the point in tracing and taxing the person who allegedly has paid the amount? Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ushakant Patel (2006) 282 ITR 553 (Guj) held that the burden of proof that the investment in the asset not recorded in the books of account is on the revenue. Unsubstantiated material found with the third party cannot be considered as conclusive evidence so as to make additions, towards unexplained investments, in the hands of the assessee. Undisputedly no other material has been brought to the fore by the Department, suggesting any such on-money having been given by the assessee to certain other alleged person.
& 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur Inspite of specific request no cross examination of the third party who have accepted that the developer has received on-money was allowed to the assessee. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 204 held that if the entries on loose sheet of paper, found during search, are not corroborated by any other evidence, no addition can be made. In the case of Sahitya Housing (P.) Ltd., certain entries were found in Pen-Drive on the basis of which additions were made. Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench held that unsubstantiated material found in the Pen-Drive cannot be considered, in the hands of the assessee, as conclusive evidence, so as to make addition towards unexplained credit. While so holding, it referred to the ratio of decision in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410. In the case of Aarti Colonizers Company, certain incriminating material in the form of data stored in electronic medium was found in search conducted on the partners of the assessee firm. On the basis of such electronic evidences, additions were made in the hands of the assessee firm. Such additions were subsequently deleted by Hon’ble ITAT, Raipur Bench, vide its order dated 01.07.2019, in ITA No. 178 to180/RPR/2014. It was observed by the Hon’ble Bench, that no material was found to show that the amount contained in the data was paid by the assessee firm at any point of time. Resultantly, in the absence of any corroborative evidences no addition can be made. 1.13. Ld. DRP’s Findings and Assessee’s Rebuttals Ld. DRP, in its Direction, made certain observations while upholding the addition. The assessee respectfully rebuts each of those key findings, as under: 1.13.i Rejection of Assessee’s Contention on Purchase Price: It is submitted that ld. DRP has also erroneously presumed cash payments, thereby recognizing only a cheque payment of Rs. 10,000 per sq. ft. by the assessee. However, the factual position demonstrates that the assessee had initially agreed with the developer on a consideration of approximately Rs. 10,965 per sq. ft, which was subsequently reduced due to discounts availed to Rs. 10,615 per sq. ft. The entire payment eventually made by the assessee, amounting to Rs. 10,615 per sq. ft, was executed through documented banking channels. This critical factual aspect has been entirely overlooked by ld. DRP while issuing directions to ld. AO, resulting in a significant factual error in the assessment proceedings. 1.13.ii Erroneous Reliance on Developer’s General Admission: Ld. DRP has incorrectly relied upon the general admission by the developer that cash transactions had taken place in the project, and that the developer had subsequently paid tax on undisclosed income during search proceedings.
& 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur It is respectfully submitted that a general admission by a developer or builder regarding acceptance of cash payments cannot automatically implicate the assessee specifically. Ld. DRP failed to establish any direct nexus between the general disclosure made by the developer and the specific allegation of on-money paid by the assessee or his wife. The fact that in the case of the developer, the developer has accepted the on-money, unaccounted cash receipt and has paid tax on it, has no impact on the case of the assessee. Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sh. Anil Jaggi[2018] 89 taxmann.com 266(Mumbai - Trib.) heldas under:- “…. We have deliberated on the fact that sh. Nirahjan Hiranandani in his statement recorded on oath in the course of the search & seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amount aggregating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive were the on-money received on sale of flats, which was offered as additional income under sec 132(4) and thereafter offered as such for tax in petition filed before the settlement commission. We are of the considered view that there is substantial force in the contention of the ld. AR that mere admission of the amount recorded in the pen drive as the additional income by Sh. Niranhjan Hiranandani, falling short of any such material which would inextricably evidence payment of “on Money” by the assessee would not lead to drawing of adverse inference as regards the investment made by the assessee for the purchase of the property under consideration….” Admission of developer being in receipt of on-money for the flats, no way establishes that "Virendra Sharma Ji A2" is no one else but the assessee, Shri Virendra Prakash Sharma or that on-money was paid by the assessee or his wife for purchase of the flat. Reliance is placed on the under noted cases, having similar factual matrix, wherein, some incriminating documents (pen drives) were seized from one Shri Chetan Gupta allegedly containing details of approx 148 people, whose money and wealth, allegedly, was administered by the said Shri Chetan Gupta. Additions were made in the case of persons, based on entries in such Pen-Drives. However, in the below mentioned cases, such additions were deleted by the appellate authorities:- o K. Natwar Singh, o Raninder Singh, ITA No. 3196/Del/2009 It is a trite law that no addition can be made on the basis of documents found from third party without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents obtained from such third party. Reliance is placed on the below mentioned cases The aforesaid law laid down is supported by the following judgments:- o Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT 224 CTR 62 o DCIT V. Mahendra Ambalal Patel 40 DTR 243 & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur o Prakash Chand Nahta V. CIT 301 ITR 134 o CIT V. Salek chand 300 ITR 426 (All) o SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del) o JMD Computers 20DTR 317 o Amarjit Singh Bakshi 263 ITR 217 o Krishna Textiles 11 DTR 217 o A.N. Dyaneswaran {2008} 214 CTR (Mad) 482 1.14. Ld. AO, while passing the assessment order, has stated that the on-money payment amounting to Rs. 69,32,250 was made by Shri Sharad Kumar Bhandari [PB: 15]. However, it is submitted that the assessee in the present case is Shri Sanjay Mehta, not Shri Sharad Kumar Bhandari. This discrepancy clearly evidences the lack of application of mind and the mechanical manner in which the order has been passed by ld. AO, reflecting procedural irregularities and non-application of due diligence at the time of making the order. In light of the above, the addition of Rs.69,32,250 is completely unjustified. The assessee prays for deletion of the addition in full. The on-money allegation is baseless and not backed by legally sustainable evidence.”
Per contra, ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that evidence was available on record to establish that the assessee had paid 'on-money' for the purchase of the flat. The ld. DR emphasized that the extracts of the Excel sheets seized during the search operation on the developer, from whom the assessee had purchased the flat, clearly indicated such unaccounted payments.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The entire addition by the AO is based one xtracts of certain Excel sheets seized during search operations conducted at the premises of the "Om Kothari & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur Group." We find force in the argument of the assessee that these seized materials constitute "dumb documents," lacking the necessary authenticity, verifiable context, or corroborative linkage to establish any cash transaction involving the assessee. The AO has notably failed to produce any direct or corroborative evidence affirming the receipt of alleged on-money from the assessee.Furthermore, the assessee has established through bank statements and registered sale agreements that the entire consideration for the property purchase was paid through banking channels. The recorded sale consideration aligns with the documented and agreed-upon price. Additionally, we observe that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine key individuals whose statements the AO heavily relied upon. We derive support on this aspect from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006), where it was categorically held that denial of cross- examination of witnesses whose statements are used against an assessee renders the assessment or adjudication untenable in law.
In furtherance of the argument regarding the evidentiary value of loose documents without corroboration, the ld. AR has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, where it was held that mere loose sheets or documents, uncorroborated by & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur independent evidence, do not constitute substantial evidence capable of sustaining significant additions. Additionally, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 204has held that additions based purely on unsubstantiated loose papers, without the corroboration of independent evidence or confirmations from the involved parties, cannot withstand legal scrutiny.
We have carefully gone through the judicial precedents cited by the ld. AR and find them squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Based on the factual matrix of the case, we find force in the argument of the ld. AR of the assessee that the AO has failed to meet the requirement of conclusively proving that the assessee had indeed made any unaccounted cash payments, as mandated under Section 69B of the Act. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, AO alleged that the assessee paid 'on-money' of Rs. 2,370 per sq. ft. in cash, in addition to the documented Rs. 10,000 per sq. ft. through banking channels. The assessee, however, submitted that the entire transaction was finalized at approximately Rs. 10,965 per sq. ft., fully paid via banking channels, contradicting the AO’s presumption. The assessee further highlighted that the AO’s computation implied rate of approximately Rs. 13,335 per sq. ft., significantly higher than even the AO’s alleged market rate of Rs. 12,000 per sq. ft., thereby resulting into
Given these considerations, we find there is no direct evidence or independent corroboration supporting the addition made by AO. Additionally, there is an absence of conclusive material evidence to substantiate the AO’s claim. Furthermore, the AO has failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 69B of the Act.In view of the detailed analysis above and after considering the judicial precedents placed before us, we direct that the entire addition made in the hands of assessee, Sanjay Mehta, of Rs. 69,32,250,be deleted.
Since the factual matrix involved in the case of Sanjay Mehta, as discussed by us hereinabove, is similar to the facts of the case of Urvashi Mehta, our observations made in the case of Sanjay Mehta ( Urvashi Mehta (ITA No. 200/JPR/2025). Accordingly, the addition made in the case of Urvashi Mehta is also hereby deleted.
During the course of the hearing, certain legal issues challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 153C and the satisfaction recorded therein were also raised by the ld. AR of the assessee. However, as we have already adjudicated the case in favour of the assessee on factual grounds and have directed the deletion & 201/JPR/2025 Urvashi Mehta and Ors. Jaipur of the additions, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction assumed under Section 153C become academic in nature and does not require separate adjudication.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/09/2025.