AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in ignoring that fact that there is no incriminating material unearthed by Assessing Officer in case of the appellant u/s. 153C of the Act. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in considering the fact that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction and no material for re-opening u/s. 153C of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in ignoring the fact that no satisfaction note has been received to the appellant from his Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as prescribed u/s. 153C of the Act. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in not considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition u/s. 69 of the Act solely on the basis of statements of Mr. Imran Ansari and Mr. Tabrez Shaikh, without any corroborative evidence. 6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d stated that in its project by name "Platinum Mall" various parties including the assessee, had purchased the shops from M/s. RHIL and paid on money totaling to Rs. 151,39,11,026/- which was treated as unaccounted receipt and subsequently offered the same as additional income @ 8% by M/s. RHIL. The assessee being one of the purchasers of shops from the said project was also assessed as to the nature and source of the said investment amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- made during the year under consideration along with other payments made in the subsequent years aggregating to Rs. 12,86,338/-. After duly considering the assessee's submission the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 22.03.2024 u/s 153C of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 5,27,360/- after making an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act towards on money receipt alleged to have been paid to M/s. RHIL. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 13.08.2025 upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO on similar ground as that of the Ld. AO. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 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 ITA No.4742/M/2025 & 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat 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 diaries and 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 ITA No. 3842& 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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:- 17. 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. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase 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 tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) 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 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, ITA No. 2573/Mum/2017, ITO Vs. Nikhil Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017 Heena Dashrath Jhanglani Vs. ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/2022. 18. From ....