Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against orders from the CIT(A) that upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). These additions were based on a search and seizure operation conducted on the Rubberwala group, where the AO relied on incriminating documents and statements found during the search of third parties. The assessee contended that they were not provided adequate opportunity to cross-examine and confront the evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and documents, without independent corroborative material and without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents, are unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to provide such an opportunity is a breach of natural justice and renders the assessment order null and void.
Key Issues
Whether assessment orders relying on third-party evidence without cross-examination violate principles of natural justice? Whether additions based on uncorroborated third-party information are sustainable?
Sections Cited
153C, 132, 132(4), 69B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, F BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
PER BENCH: The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 13.09.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the A.Ys 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No. 8185/Mum/2025, A.Y 2017-18 as lead case and facts narrated therein. ITA No. 8185/Mum/2025, A.Y 2017-18 The following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee:
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, making the assessment order illegal and without juri iction.
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, as per the grounds contained in the assessment order or otherwise.
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in merely relying on the statement of Shri. Imran Ansari, without any cogent evidence on record, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.
On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in holding that the appellant has paid
At the very outset Ld. AR submitted that the grounds on merits in question raised by the assessee are squarely covered by the series of the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the following cases:
ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025, Pravin K Purohit Vs. DCIT
ITA Nos. 5553 to 5555/Mum/2025, Akhraj P Chopra Vs. DCIT
ITA Nos. 6363 to 6365/Mum/2025, Bhavana V. Jain Vs. ACIT
ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/Mum/2025, Bharat Solanki Vs. DCIT.
ITA Nos. 5499 to 5501/Mum/2025, Manish K Seksaria Vs. DCIT
ITA Nos. 5552 & 5556/Mum/2025, Mishra Ganesha
ITA Nos. 6571, 6569 & 6568/Mum/2025, Manish Mali Vs. DCIT
ITA Nos. 5488 to 5489/Mum/2025, Darpan H Mehta Vs. DCIT
ITA Nos. 6480, 6479 & 6479/Mum/2025, Dinesh Megharam Choudhary.
We notice that in the case of Pravin K Purohit (supra), the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai Bench had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, the operative portion of the same is reproduced herein below:
We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessment was completed u/s 153C on account of the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search action, premises of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), its promoter and director-Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during the course of search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the respective buyers of the shops. However, on the other hand, the assessee denied payment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pendrive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was found, which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A).
We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Rajesh Jain on identical issue but misplace its reliance. After having gone through the basic facts of Rajesh Jain case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is reproduced as under:
On 17.03.2021, the residential premise of the assessee was also covered by way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Search action was also initiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021. In such action along with premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubberwala group entities, residences of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and Shri Imran Ansari a key employee of Rubberwala group handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered under section 132 of the Act. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as well as post search proceedings.
During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Agripada, Mumbai Central - 400011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari was covered under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter-alia handling sale and registration of the shops in “PlatinumMall” Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL).
Shri Imran Ansari in his response to question no. 13 & 14 of the said statement explained the complete procedure of the of the sale of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project. While explaining further about the price structure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in response to Q. no. 15 categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group). On probing further, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 16, stated that these prices, as decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, are communicated to him orally. He also revealed in response to Q. no. 17 of the said statement that data related to shops is maintained by him in excel sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved from his possession. The said pen drive is accepted by Shri Imran Ansari belonging to him and he also accepted that this pen drive is containing data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explained that this data is prepared by him. Shri Imran Ansari's this acceptance also corroborates with the fact that the said data was retrieved from the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwala Group.
It was ascertained that the data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in an excel file namely “consolidated 1 2 3 balance”. In the said file sheets with different name viz “Master”, “Payment” and “Cheque” etc. are found to be maintained. It is also found out that in respect of the sale of shops in the said project, comprehensive data is being maintained in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet “Master” is so elaborate that the data in the said sheet is spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns of “Master” sheet and such explanation of each and every column by Shri Imran Ansari further support the fact that the he was maintaining the said data and therefore could explain all these columns with relevance and purpose. Shri Imran Ansari in response to Question no. 22, 23 and 24, has explained in detail the meaning and relevant of each and every column. In column B, against the name of ‘Raj Bhai Jain’/ ‘Raj BhaiJain(I.S)', total 27 shops have been entered. Further, these 27 shops are stated (by Shri Imran Ansari) to be booked by the assessee only. Also, Shri Tabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement during post search proceedings on 19.08.2021 categorically confirmed the admission made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confirmed the data of the said excel to be true by confirming facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari in his statement. It is also important to note here that the phone number mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh Jain.
Regarding the frequency of updating the said excel file/sheet, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is updated on the same day when a payment is received either in cash or cheque (or banking channel). The column A to AR of the sheet “Master” are stated to be updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the said excel file are also stated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in the above response that he takes the parties to Shri Abrar Ahmed (who during the search established to be a person handing cash for the Rubberwala Group). Shri Abrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari who update the diariesand the said excel file. Such detailed mechanism in place further upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari on oath. It is also important to note here that Shri Imran Ansari also used to call and follow up with the buyers on the numbers saved in his data. As aforementioned, the number, for the shops for which the assessee has paid the cash component, is mentioned as 9892196071, which is the assessee's own number. Thus, it makes clear that for the cash payment part, for all the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari used to follow up with Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only.........
We also noticed that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 3842& 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 and 3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is reproduced herein below:
The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020-21 is with regard to the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash payments relating to the shops purchased by others cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The decision rendered by us in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 on an identical issue on merits in the earlier paragraphs would apply in this year also. Following the same, we affirm the order passed by LdCIT(A) on this issue.
In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash payment of Rs.18,64,200/- in respect of purchase of shop confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is being assailed.
We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search conducted in their hands, incriminating documents containing details of cash collected on sale of various shops were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. However, the assessee denied payment of cash. However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the case of Rubberwala group and accordingly made addition of Rs.18,64,200/- in AY 2020-21. The LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same.
The ld A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the same. The AO also did not provide the opportunity of cross examination despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on various case laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted.
We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs.18,64,200/- cannot No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under:-
We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO had placed reliance upon. The Hon