TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring income of Rs. 4,87,98,100/-. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 04.10.2018 as per returned income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had received an information that certain on-money was paid in cash for the purchase transaction made by the assessee & the co-owners in respect of a property acquired from Navratna Group. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in Navratna Group on 11.04.2017 wherein receipt of on-money by the Group was admitted and Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NODPL) had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only on the basis of general statement of one Shri Murlidhar Marutibhai Trivedi and the admission of NODPL before the Settlement Commission that it had received on money in certain transactions. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the case of other co-owners viz. Moulesh Ashokkumar Patel & Shilpaben Moulesh Patel, was also reopened by the Department for the same reason but no addition was made in their case as the revenue was satisfied with the explanation. He, therefore, submitted that no contradictory stand could be taken in assessee's case on the basis of the same evidence. He further submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has considered the admission of NODPL and held that no addition was called for on that basis in the hand o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee had paid on-money in respect of acquisition of property made by him. 8. The evidences found from NODPL on the basis of which the addition has been made, was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna in ITA No.1793/Ahd/2024 dated 19.03.2025. The finding given in the said order is found to be as under: "7. The most important facts observed by us pertains to para No.9.1 to 9.4 of the assessment order. For the sake of ready reference and completeness, the said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: - 9.1 As per assessee, the decoded is done by the Depart decoded is done by the Department is its own and the search party has not given any authenticity for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purchasers of the scheme whatever developed by it. The name of the assessee also inclusive thereon. It is not proper query from the assessee, for his individual, he has confessed before ITSC. 9.4 As regard the payment made in various years hence, the amount involved for this year is only for under question. However, it is brought to kind notice of the assessee that the purchase deed is executed in the year under consideration hence, the all transaction are covered under this year only." 7.1 A detailed analysis of the relevant paragraphs from the assessment order reveals multiple inconsistencies and procedural lapses that render the addition unjustified. 7.2 Firstly, the decoding of figures has been done solely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding the assessee but also on another person's details, which are confidential and lie within the Investigation Wing. Since this statement has not been shared with the assessee, reliance on it violates the principles of natural justice. Without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the statement or verify its contents, the department cannot use it as the basis for making an addition. 7.5 Furthermore, NODPL has confessed before ITSC that it collected on-money from the sale of land and buildings. However, the admission was made in a general context regarding all purchasers of the scheme developed by NODPL. There is no specific mention or direct evidence linking the assessee to this alleged on-money transaction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated." 10. It is further found that the case of the other two co-owners Moulesh Ashokkumar Patel & Shilpaben Moulesh Patel was also reopened by the Department by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17. A copy of the assessment order passed in their cases have been brought on record in the paper-book and it is found therefrom that no addition for any on-money payment was made in their hands. When no addition was made in the case of other co-owners, the Revenue was correct in making the addition of payment of on money in the hand of the assessee, on the basis of the same evidence. 11. In view of the above facts and ....