SHRI JALARAM TARARAM PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), MUMBAI

At the very outset Ld. AR submitted that the grounds 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: to 4744/Mum/2025, Pravin K Purohit Vs. DCIT 2. to 5555/Mum/2025, Akhraj P Chopra Vs. DCIT 3. to 6365/Mum/2025, Bhavana V. Jain Vs. ACIT 4. to 6525/Mum/2025, Bharat Solanki Vs. DCIT. 5. to 5501/Mum/2025, Manish K Seksaria Vs. DCIT 6. & 5556/Mum/2025, Mishra Ganesha Ram Vs. DCIT 7. ITA Nos. 6571, 6569 & 6568/Mum/2025, Manish Mali Vs. DCIT 8. ITA Nos. 5488 to 5489/Mum/ 2025, Darpan H Mehta Vs. DCIT 9. ITA Nos. 6480, 6479 & 6479/Mum/2025, Dinesh Megharam Choudhary.

In the case of Pravin K Purohit (supra), the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai Bench had decided the same is reproduced herein below: 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: 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.

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. 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:-

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‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that the above said decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the present case.

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.

Therefore, in our view, the information if any found in the pendrive etc., cannot be considered as „credible evidence‟, unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Since the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, if any, based on which notice u/s 153 of the Act, was issued, in our view, it hampers the primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice.

As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of assessment, during the search and seizure conducted in the case of third party therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of pendrive are correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid „on-money‟ in cash, no addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenario no addition is warranted in the case of assessee. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below:

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 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. 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.

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 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 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:– ……..

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. 16. In the case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, Assessment Year: 2011-12, wherein the coordinate bench has held as under:

From the records we also noticed that no statement was provided to the assessee, and none of the persons, whose statements were relied upon were produced for cross- examination. Even the extract of the statement mentioned in the assessment order does not indicate the name of the assessee.

Apart, the AO during the course of assessment also failed to provide the opportunity to cross examine of the witnesses, resulted in „breach of principles of natural justice‟. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that „failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity‟.

In the case of H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai 72 taxmann.com110 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under 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 furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose material, these were denied to him.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed by us above, we direct the AO to delete the addition, consequently these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.