TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals, the grounds of appeal and the facts are similar except variation of addition on account of unexplained investment. Therefore, with consent of both parties, the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.8859/Mum/2025 is taken as the lead case. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 8859/Mum/2025 (AY: 2017-18) are as under: "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year, without proper appreciation of facts and l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law and on facts in upholding the addition without providing the appellant an effective opportunity of cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The lower authorities erred in placing reliance on mere allegations regarding a supposed payment to M/s. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, in the absence of any corroborative trail or independent verification to substantiate such a claim. 4. The appellate order suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as it disregarded the evidence furnished by the appellant and proceeded to confirm the addition in a mechanical manner, solely based on conjectures. 5. The A.O. did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the assessee which is valuation of principle of natural justice. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing." 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 03.08.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 4,52,880/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 17.03.2021 in case of Rubberwala group and Ors. It was gathered during the search that the appellant had purchased shop in Platinum Mall Building, Girgaon, Mumbai and amount of Rs.20,72,225/- was paid in cash on acquisition of the property. Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 12,75,350/- and Rs. 6,96,875/- in cash were paid in AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20), (vi) Mishra Ganesha Ram Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & 5556/MUM/2025 dated 23.12.2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21), (vii) Manish Mali Vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & 6568/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019- 20) & Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5488-5489/MUM/2025 (AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20) & Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) dated 24.12.2025, (viii) Arvind K Purohit Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 dated 20.01.2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19), (ix) Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1), ITA No 5831 & 5832/MUM/2025 dated 19.01.2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant by following the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in case of Praveen K Purohit (supra), which in turn relied on the decisions of ITAT, Mumbai in cases of Rajesh Jain in ITA No.3841 & 3842 and ITA Nos. 3950, 3951, 3952 and 3954/Mum/2023; Heena Dashrath Jhanglani (ITA No.1665/Mum/2018); Monika Anand Gupta (ITA No.5561/Mum/2018); Ms. Mamta Sharad Gupta (ITA No.1553/Mum/2021) and others. The relevant part of the decision of Praveen K Purohit (supra) has been reproduced at page 5 to 14 of the ITAT order (supra) and all four appeals of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal finally decided as under:- "6. On comparison of fact of present case, we do not find any material difference, therefore, respectfully following the same, the ....