BHAGWANTI LALITKUMAR JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,90,350/- u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investments on account of alleged cash payment towards the purchase of shop premises over and above the agreement value of shop. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition is based solely on the uncorroborated statement of third party/parties and there is no tangible and incriminating material on record. The addition confirmed is bad-in-law and based on surmises, conjectures and unreliable evidences and liable to be deleted;

5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,90,350/- made in the assessment year 2019-20 and failed to appreciate that no material is brought on record to establish that the alleged payment was made during the year under consideration. The appellant had neither purchased any property nor made any payment to the alleged party during the year under consideration. In the absence of any conclusive documentary evidence linking the date of transaction to the relevant assessment year, the addition is arbitrary, bad in law, and liable to be deleted.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the tax computed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act in the Assessment order. However, in computation sheet, the AO has calculated tax invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The application of the special tax rate is invalid and without jurisdiction, and therefore, the tax should have been computed at the normal applicable rates.”

The Ld. AR challenged the Ld. AO’s jurisdiction for invoking section 153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee. The Ld. AR also argued on the other grounds such as opportunity of cross examination was not given to the assessee and statements of third parties relied upon by the Ld. AO was also not furnished during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that on identical facts in the case of the same group entities the co-ordinate Benches have deleted the addition made in the hands of assessee with no change in facts and circumstances of the present case. The Ld. AR relied on a catena of decisions.

It is observed that the assessee has purchased shops from M/s. RHIL for a total sale consideration of Rs.14,01,560/-. The assessee denied that there was any cash payment & 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain made to the seller and that the Ld. AO without conducting proper enquiry had merely relied on the statement of the director and the key person of M/s. RHIL for making the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee. As there are various assessees who had purchased shops from the said group, the Tribunal on similar facts has deleted the addition by holding that there are no corroborative evidences for payment of on money for making addition in the hands of the assessee and there cannot be addition merely on the basis of third party information without bringing in any evidence qua the assessee for the relevant assessment year. As there are no changes in facts and circumstances of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR, we do not find any justification in deciding this issue against the assessee. The relevant extract of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pravin Khetaramm Purohit vs. DCIT in & ors. order dated 15.10.2025 relied upon by the Ld. AR is cited hereinunder for ease of reference:

“8. 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).

9. 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:

& 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain 5.1. 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.

5.2. 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).

5.3. 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.

5.4. 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 & 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain 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, ShriTabrez 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 byconfirming 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.

5.5. 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 ShriAbrar Ahmed (who during the search established to be a person handing cash for the Rubberwala Group). ShriAbrar 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…………………

10. We also noticed that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Jain in 3841 & and 3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is reproduced herein below:

12. 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.

& 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain 13. 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.

14. 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.

16. 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 be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under:-

& 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain

11. From the above we find that the Coordinate bench has consider the same facts and rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and since the facts of the present case are also identical with the facts of Rajesh Jain’s (supra) case, therefore the said decision will be application on the facts of the present case as well. Moreover, the assessee categorically denied having paid any amount in cash over and above the agreement value. The AO has neither confronted assessee with any of the material found during the search on Rubberwala group and even no evidence or seized document has been referred to where any name of the assessee has been explicitly mentioned on account of paying any ‘on-money’.

12. Although it has been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material /documents /pendrive was confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was confronted.

10. I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of ` 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on–money in cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section & 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on– money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on–money in cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on–money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on–money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page–53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on– money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima–facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained.

11. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on–money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the & 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on–money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on–money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on–money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on–money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material on record to prove the payment of on–money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on–money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under:– ……..

15. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Monika Anand Gupta (A.Y. 2011-12) whereas coordinate bench held as under:

6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find that the addition for on-money payment has been done in this case without any corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based upon some statement of the builder. Such additions are not sustainable on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs P.V Kalyana sundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collected by revenue at the builder’s office is compliant with the requirement of section 65B of Evidence Act regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be deleted.

9. Since the sole issue raised in this appeal is covered by the order (supra) passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal addition made in this case is not sustainable. Because the addition is made merely on the basis of statement made by one Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the promoters of Cosmos Group under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroboration. Moreover, statement or any material seized during the course of search under section 132(4) of the Act can only be used & 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain against Mr. Suraj Parmar of Cosmos Group and not against the assessee without any corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from the office of builders is also not admissible being not proved under section 65 of the Evidence Act. So in view of the matter, addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

17. For the above proposition, we place reliance upon the decision in the case of ITO Vs. Vinod Aggarwal, ITO Vs. Nikhil Vinod Aggarwal, Heena Dashrath Jhanglani Vs. ITO, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, to 3268/Mum/2022.

20.In the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418ITR 315), it was held that the ‘addition/disallowance made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny and denying the opportunity of cross examination of the third party renders the addition/disallowance bad in law’

In the light of the fact that the money was advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least that the Assessing Officer should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against him in arriving before passing the order of assessment. This not having been done, the denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents whose statements were relied upon by him. Despite the request seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponents and & 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose material, these were denied to him.

& 8656/Mum/2025 Ms. Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.02.2026