TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] vide order dated 26.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 27.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 30,00,378/-, which was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 8(4), Mumbai, based on search under section 132 conducted in the case of Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar on 10.09.2015, and Survey under section 133A in the case of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF, a real estate developer. 3. The material fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....originated from a third party. Statements of Shri Pankaj Goshar and Shri Ajay Vishrani, relied upon by the department, were also stated to contain categorical denials of receiving any cash from the assessee. Cross-examination of Shri Pankaj Goshar was conducted, wherein he reiterated that no cash was received from the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, treated these denials as unreliable and held that the seized electronic material sufficiently established that an unexplained cash payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly made an addition under section 69A, treating the amount as unexplained investment. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Learned CIT(A), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,00,000/- was neither supported by any written agreement nor corroborated by any independent evidence of actual payment. The AR emphasized that the entire addition was founded solely upon certain images and loose notings retrieved from the iPhone of Shri Pankaj Goshar, which were admittedly not in the handwriting of the assessee and were never recovered from his possession. It was brought to our attention that both Shri Pankaj Goshar and Shri Ajay Vishrani, when examined by the department, categorically denied having received any cash from the assessee. 9. The AR further submitted that an identical addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- had been made in the hands of the assessee's brother, Shri Nimesh Umakant Manania. The AR also invited attent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings retrieved from the iPhone of Shri Pankaj Goshar, a third party. These electronic entries did not originate from the assessee, were not authored by him, and were not recovered from his possession. The Assessing Officer did not bring any primary evidence to establish the authorship or ownership of these notings. We find that this factual finding of the CIT(A) is borne out directly from the assessment order and is not disputed by the Revenue. The evidentiary value of third-party loose sheets without linkage to the assessee has repeatedly been held to be weak and incapable of sustaining an addition. The CIT(A) has further observed that the Assessing Officer did not produce any corroborative material to establish the alleged cash payment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alyanji Velji HUF (supra), and Nimesh Manania (supra) (brother of the assessee), wherein identical seized material was held to be "dumb documents" incapable of supporting additions in the absence of corroboration. 16. We have perused the reasoning adopted in these coordinate bench decisions. The material relied on in the present case is substantially identical and suffers from the same defects. Consistency demands that similar evidentiary deficiencies must lead to similar conclusions. 17. The CIT(A) has also noted that the very same alleged cash payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000 was assessed in the hands of the assessee's brother, Shri Nimesh Manania. This stands undisputed on record. An addition that is not only uncorroborated but is also d....