TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the same search action, involve common facts and overlapping evidence and were heard together, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. In ITA Nos. 539 and 540/Mum/2026, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of additions of Rs. 1,19,00,000 and Rs. 3,96,00,000, respectively, made under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unaccounted cash investment in shops situated in the project known as "Platinum Mall". 3. In ITA No. 541/Mum/2026 for A.Y. 2021-22, the Revenue has challenged: (i) deletion of the addition of Rs. 31,34,000 made under section 69 on account of alleged on-money paid in respect of shops in Platinum Mall; and (ii) restriction of the addition made under section 69A, on the basis of WhatsApp chats containing the expression "Kg", from Rs. 51,99,850 to Rs. 6,09,850. 4. In ITA No. 1145/Mum/2026 for A.Y. 2021-22, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,09,850 sustained by the learned CIT(A) under section 69A. The assessee contends that the amount represented business receipts already recorded and offered as part of the disclosed turnover. The remaining grounds raised by both sides are either general or consequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....below: Answer to question No. 50:- Sr. No. Agreement-holder Shop No. Agreement value (Rs.) Alleged cash amount (Rs.) 1 Karan Choudhary 52 12,48,900 19,96,860 2 Kamala Naresh Choudhary 76 18,73,350 25,31,610 3 Suraj Kumar Patel 86 18,19,050 24,58,230 4 Naresh Harkaram Choudhary 88 21,44,850 27,63,420 5 Naresh Harkaram Choudhary 89 20,90,550 16,17,000 6 Naresh Harkaram Choudhary 90 20,90,550 16,17,000 7 Naresh Harkaram Choudhary 100 20,90,550 18,59,550 8 Naresh Harkaram Choudhary 101 20,90,550 18,59,550 9 Himtaram Sadaji Choudhari 116 15,37,650 12,16,350 10 Kantilal Vagtaram Prajapati 188 14,97,300 13,48,500 11 Harkaram Jogiji Chowdhari 189 16,42,200 14,79,000 12 Mahadev Choudhary 190 13,52,400 12,18,000 13 Geeta Devi Munnalal Patel 191 13,52,400 13,69,200 14 Sangeeta Motiram Choudhary 192 17,62,950 21,79,050 15 Ashok Kumar 193 17,38,800 21,49,200 16 Harkaram Jogiji Chowdhari 194 16,90,500 20,89,500 17 Kamala Shravan K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onent was collected. According to Shri Imran Ansari, the assessee would intimate him before sending a person with cash to the office of the Rubberwala group and, on certain occasions, Shri Imran Ansari would visit the assessee's shop to collect the cash. The Assessing Officer treated the statement as corroboration of the cash entries appearing in the Excel sheet. 11. The Assessing Officer further relied upon the statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh and upon enquiries made from some of the persons in whose names the agreements were executed. Shri Karan Choudhary denied having made the alleged cash payment for the shop standing in his name. Shri Shravan Choudhary, the assessee's brother, also denied having paid the alleged cash component relating to the shops standing in his name and stated that the assessee would be the appropriate person to explain the same. 12. The Assessing Officer also referred to the statement of the assessee recorded during the search, in which an amount of approximately Rs. 40 lakh was mentioned. The assessee subsequently explained that the sum of Rs. 40 lakh represented an accounted advance paid on 06.05.2019 through his Kotak Mahindra Bank account and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision in Rajesh Mafatlal Jain without appreciating the material differences between that case and the present case. The decisions relied upon by the assessee arose from their respective facts and could not be mechanically applied merely because the seized material originated from the Rubberwala group. 18. The learned DR submitted that the present case contained a continuous chain of evidence. The Excel file was maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in the ordinary course of handling the sales of Platinum Mall; it identified "Naresh Bhajwad" against the block of 24 bookings; Shri Imran Ansari explained the fields in the Excel sheet and described the manner in which the alleged cash was received from or at the instance of the assessee; Shri Tabrez Shaikh confirmed the receipt of cash on behalf of the builder; and the registered purchasers examined by the Department denied having provided the cash themselves. 19. The learned DR particularly relied upon the statement of the assessee's brother, Shri Shravan Choudhary, who denied having paid the cash component and stated that the assessee was the appropriate person to explain the payments relating to the units standing in his name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the mode generally employed for identifying Angadiya transactions. It was submitted that both the assessee and his employee had admitted that the chats related to unrecorded cash transactions and that the expression "Kg" denoted lakhs. The subsequent interpretation that "Kg" denoted thousands was an unsupported retraction. The learned DR accordingly prayed that the entire addition of Rs. 51,99,850 be restored. 25. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Excel file was found from the residence and possession of Shri Imran Ansari and not from the assessee. No similar Excel sheet, cash receipt, diary, voucher, cash-flow statement, parallel books or other contemporaneous evidence was found from the assessee showing that he had paid the aggregate cash amount attributed to all 24 shops. 26. The learned AR submitted that "Naresh Bhajwad" was merely a group or reference description used by the builder for identifying customers introduced by the assessee. The Excel sheet itself contained a separate column specifying the person in whose name the agreement for each shop had been executed. The existence of separate columns for the group description and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed investment in his shop, such investment had to be examined in the hands of that purchaser and could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee merely because the assessee had introduced him to the builder. 32. On the jurisdictional issue, the learned AR submitted that, since the Excel sheet was physically seized from the residence of Shri Imran Ansari in the Rubberwala-group search, the material could have been used against the assessee only by following the procedure prescribed under section 153C. It was further submitted that, for completed assessments, no addition could be made under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search of the assessee. Reliance was placed upon PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). 33. Regarding the addition under section 69A, the learned AR submitted that the assessment order itself adopted inconsistent multipliers. At some places an expression such as "7 Kg" was quantified at Rs. 70,000, whereas at other places an altogether different multiplication was adopted. No uniform decoding method was applied. The learned CIT(A), therefore, rightly rejected the assumption that every reference to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause some part of the common group-search material was physically seized from another premises covered during the same coordinated search. 39. Acceptance of the assessee's argument would result in two parallel sets of search assessments for the same person and the same assessment years-one under section 153A pursuant to the warrant executed in his own name and another under section 153C for every relevant document physically recovered from another searched premises. Such duplication is neither contemplated nor required by the statutory scheme. 40. The decisions dealing with documents recovered during the search of an independent third party are distinguishable. Those authorities apply where the assessee was either not searched or the addition in his assessment was founded exclusively upon material obtained in a separate and independent search of another person without any corresponding confrontation or corroborative evidence emerging in the assessee's search proceedings. 41. In the present case, the assessee was himself searched as part of the same coordinated group action. The Excel entries formed part of the common search material, directly related to the assessee and we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the documents, statements and corroborative circumstances were identical. We are not aware whether a simultaneous search had also been conducted upon the assessee in that case or whether the seized documents had been confronted in the manner done in the present proceedings. The said decision cannot, therefore, be treated as conclusive without first establishing factual parity. 48. At the same time, the relevance and admissibility of evidence are distinct from the attribution of the investment to a particular person. The Excel sheet and the statements cannot be ignored. They constitute relevant material requiring examination. However, the sheet has to be read in its entirety and with due regard to its internal columns. 49. The Excel sheet uses the expression "Naresh Bhajwad" as a common group or identification description. In a separate column, it distinctly records the name of the person in whose favour the agreement for each shop was executed. This distinction is significant. The expression "Naresh Bhajwad" establishes a connection between the assessee and the block of bookings. It may indicate that the assessee negotiated, introduced, coordinated or facilitated the transact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r's spreadsheet. 55. We therefore hold that the alleged on-money may be considered in the assessee's hands only in relation to the shops owned by the assessee or where independent evidence establishes that, despite ownership in another person's name, the assessee was the actual source of the funds. In respect of the shops standing in the names of independently identifiable purchasers, the investment has to be examined in the hands of the real person liable to tax. 56. The addition in the assessee's hands shall be confined to the on-money, if any, pertaining to the shops owned by the assessee. For a shop standing in the name of the assessee's wife, relative or any other person, the relationship by itself shall not be treated as sufficient evidence that the assessee was the funder. 57. For the remaining shops, the Department shall be at liberty to take such action, in accordance with law, in the hands of the real persons liable. 58. In view of the Revenue's appeals for these two years are partly allowed. 59. We now separately take up the cross-appeals for A.Y. 2021-22. 60. The plea under Rule 27 founded upon sections 153A and 153C does not arise in relation to A.Y. ....