TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of shops in the "Platinum Mall" project developed by RHIL. 2.1 RHIL had constructed a commercial complex known as "Platinum Mall", wherein various shops were sold to different purchasers, including the assessee. During the course of the search proceedings, certain digital material in the form of an Excel sheet was found and seized from the possession of Shri Imran Ansari. In his statement, he explained that the consideration for sale of shops in "Platinum Mall" comprised both accounted (cheque) and unaccounted (cash) components, and that the quantum of such cash component was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. 2.2 The information so gathered during the course of search was subsequently disseminated to the Assessing Officers having jurisdiction over the respective purchasers of the shops, including the assessee herein, for appropriate action in accordance with law. 3. The assessee filed its original returns of income for the relevant assessment years declaring the following incomes: for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,39,350/-; for A.Y. 2018-19 on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 4,07,970/-; for A.Y. 2019-20 on 24.12.2019 declaring t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pronounced on 10th November 2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-2021) (iii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363- 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (iv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "B" bench in case of Bharat Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523- 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (v) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish K Seksaria VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5499- 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (vi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "E" bench in case of Mishra Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & 5556/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21) (vii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai "D" bench in case of Manish Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & 6568/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) AND Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5488- 5489/MUM/2025 (AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20) AND Dinesh Megharam Choudhary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The Relevant observation of the Coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Arvind K Purohit Vs DCIT in ITA No. 4747 and 4746/M/2025 is reproduced as under: "4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that only evidence which have been referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has been further explained by Shri Imran Ansari key employee of the RHIL. No other evidence has been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A) 4.1 The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital records and statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross-examination. It is an undisputed position that the entire edifice of the impugned addition rests on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee submitted that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid such cash on-money and it might be their own money which they had brought into books in garb of cash on- money for tax benefit. 8.6 We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove the assessee's investment or expenditure. 8.7 The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the customers a small diary was being used to provide containing cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quirement of natural justice, where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen-drive contents were supplied through the show-cause notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on Andaman Timber Industries is, with respect, misconceived and internally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that cross-examination is necessary only where the third-party statement is the "sole basis" of the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, the Excel sheets and the pen-drive data have no independent evidentiary value dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and the linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. The digital material does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be followed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the case here. 8.16 The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with cross-examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends on the nature of evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present case: * the assessee has categorically denied having made any cash payment; * no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the assessee; * the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, was never recovered; and * the entire edifice of the addition rests on third-party statements and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. 8.17 In such circumstances, denial of cross-examination causes manifest prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. 8.18 We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged cash "on-money" payments for purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Rs. 42 lakh made on accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 :- ........... 8.19 The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that the additions were made solely on the basis of (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifically record any admission by the assessee; and * the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross-examination permitted. 8.24 In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash "on-money", the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of the Act remains unmet. 8.25 During the hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently adopted by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, such co-ordinate decisions be respectfully followed. 8.26 On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of uncorroborated third-party material and statements, without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in violatio....