TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein based on discussion, submissions and observations, the decision, being on identical and interconnected facts (except quantum involved), would apply mutatis mutandis to remaining two appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 4. The grounds of appeal for the lead case are as under: "1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] framed and passed on 01.09.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Act and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. 1.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. 2. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed is bad in law and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quisition of property, which the assessee was unable to explain or rebut to the information surfaced during the search. Accordingly, additions are made treating the aforesaid amounts in the hands of assessee treating the same as unaccounted / unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but with no success, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. 7. Again aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before ITAT, under consideration in the present matters. 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee (for short "Ld. AR"), submitted that, the case of assessee is amongst many cases which have decided by the ITAT Mumbai benches in various cases, wherein on identical facts, the issue qua the payment of on-money for acquisition of property in Platinum Mall of Rubberwala Group, on the basis of material surfaced during the search in Rubberwala group had examined and decided. Ld. AR further added that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee on various prepositions for which a written submission has been furnished, extracted as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] Proposition 3- Material gathered and statements recorded during search can be used only against the searched party and not against a third party, especially in the absence of independent corroborative evidence establishing the factum of payment of alleged on-money by the Assessee. 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. Relevant Cases - (i) Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA No. 5553/MUM/2025] & [ITA No. 5555/MUM/2025] (ii) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] (iii) Bhavana Vikram Jain v. ACIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai - [ITA No.6363/MUM/2025] & [ITA No.6364/MUM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 5555/MUM/2025] (ii) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] (iii) Bhavana Vikram Jain v. ACTT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai -[ITA No.6363/MUM/2025] & [ITA No.6364/MUM/2025] Proposition 7- Mr. Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that a diary was provided to the Customers for recording details of cash received from them. During search on one of the customers Mr. Rajesh Jain, no such diary or any other document was obtained from him. Similarly, in the case of the Assessee Mr. Bipin Jain, no such diary or receipt or any document establishing acknowledgement of the alleged cash given by him has been brought on record by the A.O. Naturally, the statement of Mr. Ansari loses its evidentiary value under such circumstances. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai - [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] Proposition 8- The promoter of Rubberwala Group has denied accepting cash and has categorically admitted that entire payment was received through banking channel from the Assessee- Mr. Bipin Jain. C....