ASHOK CHUNILAL MALI,MUMBAI V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 9440/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by Ashok Chunilal Mali against the orders of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, concerning the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The appeals were related to additions made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which were based on alleged unexplained investments in properties purchased from the Rubberwala Housing Infrastructure Limited group. The Tribunal examined similar cases and precedents where additions were made on identical grounds but were later overturned due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive evidence. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for independent corroborative evidence and adherence to the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examine.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847080 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pravin K Purohit VS DCIT, Akhraj P Chopra VS DCIT, Lilaram VS DCIT, Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT, Bharat Solanki VS DCIT, Manish K Seksaria VS DCIT, Mishra Ganesha Ram VS DCIT, Manish Mali VS DCIT, Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT, Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT, Arvind K Purohit VS DCIT, Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT, Bhavesh H Solanki VS DCIT, Bipin F Jain VS DCIT, Jayantilal Purohit VS DCIT, Kulsum Aaqib Memon VS DCIT, Ganpat H Purohit VS DCIT, Rajesh Jain VS DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Ashok Chunilal Mali 301,302, 3rd Floor, Ramdarshan Co Op Hsg Soc,Keshavrao Kadam Marg Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400008 (PAN: CDZPM1972P) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All the three appeals filed by the assessee comprising of different Assessment Years are against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai vide order Nos.- i) ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081459163(1) ii) ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081458967(1) and iii) ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081459416(1) all dated 06.10.2025, passed against the assessment order dated 12.03.2024 by ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 2. Assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal. The same are reproduced below: ITA Nos. 9440/MUM/2025 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of A.O. about that issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act without DIN. It is blatant contravention of the Circular No. 19/2019,dated 14-8-2019 issued by the CBDT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. for not sharing incrementing documents found during the course of search of rubberwala group which was pertained to the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the not providing statement and materials used by him against the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,00,000 /- u/s 69 of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note is valid in the eyes of law, as current legal and judicial precedent overwhelmingly requires separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and/or entity; the recording of a combined or consolidated satisfaction note has consistently been held to vitiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos. 9441/MUM/2025 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of A.O. about that issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act without DIN. It is blatant contravention of the Circular No. 19/2019, dated 14- 8-2019 issued by the CBDT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. for not sharing incrementing documents found during the course of search of rubberwala group which was pertained to the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the not providing statement and materials used by him against the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 10,72,755 /- u/s 69 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note is valid in the eyes of law, as current legal and judicial precedent overwhelmingly requires separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and/or entity; the recording of a combined or consolidated satisfaction note has consistently been held to vitiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos. 9442/MUM/2025 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of A.O. about that issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act without DIN. It is blatant contravention of the Circular No. 19/2019, dated 14- 8-2019 issued by the CBDT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. for not sharing incrementing documents found during the course of search of rubberwala group which was pertained to the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the not providing statement and materials used by him against the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 5,58,855 /- u/s 69 of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note is valid in the eyes of law, as current legal and judicial precedent overwhelmingly requires separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and/or entity; the recording of a combined or consolidated satisfaction note has consistently been held to vitiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 2.1. There being commonality in the grounds raised in the appeals filed by the assessees, we find it appropriate to take up all the appeals together for adjudication by passing this consolidated order. 3. All the issues raised by the assessee have been elaborately and exhaustively dealt by plethora of judicial precedents by various Coordinate Benches in large number of assessees, who had entered into similar transactions of purchase of shops from the Rubberwala Housing Infrastructure Limited group (RHIL) and similar additions were made on Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 identical basis which included excel file found in a pen drive seized from the third party employee of RHIL and third party statements recorded in their respective search. The list of judicial precedents on identical fact pattern with similar issues dealt there upon is tabulated as under: Sr. No. Particulars 1. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in case of Pravin K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742-4744/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 15th October 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) 2. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"C\" bench in case of Akhraj P Chopra VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5553-5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5554-5557/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th November 2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-2021) 3. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA Νο 6363-6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) 4. 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) 5. 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) 6. 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) 7. 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 VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 8. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in case of Arvind K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19) 9. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1), ITA No 5831 & 5832/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19) 10. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavesh H Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460-7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) 11. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bipin F Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) 12. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Jayantilal Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5682-5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) 13. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Kulsum Aaqib Memon VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6450/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th January 2026 (AY 2021-22) 14. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Ganpat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5827-5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) 4. Since the issues involved in the present set of appeals before us are identical to what has already been dealt in large number of cases, some of which are already tabulated above, for the purpose of bringing out the similarity, we capture relevant facts of the assessee who is in appeal before us, whereafter, we would place our reliance on the observations and findings of the Coordinate Benches to deal with the appeals before us. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee purchased shop no.172 on the first floor in the Platinum Mall constructed by RHIL. The said Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 shop was purchased with agreement value of Rs.22,31,100/-, agreement dated 24.08.2020. The value determined by the Stamp Authority was Rs.16,39,800/-. Assessee had submitted copies of agreement and bank statements evidencing payment to the builder. Assessee submitted that no payment in cash was made to the builder for the aforesaid purchase which was found to be not acceptable and the assessment was completed by making the additions u/s.69, treating it as unexplained investment which is tabulated below: Sr. No Assessment Year Amount of investment 1. 2017-18 1,00,000/- 2. 2018-19 10,72,755/- 3. 2019-20 5,58,855/- Total On money allegation 17,31,600/- 6. Keeping the above factual position in perspective, we perused the above tabulated judicial precedents of Coordinate Benches on the identical issues regarding alleged on-money payments made by the respective assessees for purchase of their respective shops from RHIL and find that there is commonality in the additions made and the basis for the said additions by the ld. Assessing Officer. All the issues raised by the assessee have been elaborately addressed in these judicial precedents. 6.1. For ease of reference, we reproduce relevant extracts from the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Praveen Khetaram Purohit vs. DCIT in ITA nos. 4742, 4743 and 4744/Mum/2025 for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21, dated 15.10.2025. “10. We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and the Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessment was completed u/s 153C on account of the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search action, premises of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), its promoter and director-Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling sale & registration of shops in \"Platinum Mall\" project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during the course of search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the respective buyers of the shops. However, on the other hand, the assessee denied payment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pen drive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was found, which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was framed and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Rajesh Jain on identical issue but misplace its reliance. After having gone through the basic facts of Rajesh Jain case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is reproduced as under: 5.1. On 17.03.2021, the residential premise of the assessee was also covered by way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Search action was also initiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021. In such action along with premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubberwala group entities, residences of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and Shri Imran Ansari - a key employee of Rubberwala group handling sale & registration of shops in \"Platinum Mall\" project of RHIL were covered under section 132 of the Act. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as well as post search proceedings. 5.2. During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Agripada, Mumbai Central -400011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari was covered under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter-alia handling sale and registration of the shops in \"Platinum Mall\" Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). 5.3. Shri Imran Ansari in his response to question no. 13 & 14 of the said statement explained the complete procedure of the of the sale of shops in the \"Platinum Mall\" project. While explaining further about the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 price structure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in response to Q. no. 15 categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group). On probing further, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 16, stated that these prices, as decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, are communicated to him orally. He also revealed in response to Q. no. 17 of the said statement that data related to shops is maintained by him in excel sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB Pen drive was retrieved from his possession. The said pen drive is accepted by Shri Imran Ansari belonging to him and he also accepted that this pen drive is containing data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explained that this data is prepared by him. Shri Imran Ansari's this acceptance also corroborates with the fact that the said data was retrieved from the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwala Group. 5.4. It was ascertained that the data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in an excel file namely \"consolidated 1 2 3 balance\". In the said file sheets with different name viz \"Master\", \"Payment\" and \"Cheque\" etc. are found to be maintained. It is also found out that in respect of the sale of shops in the said project, comprehensive data is being maintained in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet \"Master\" is so elaborate that the data in the said sheet is spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns of \"Master\" sheet and such explanation of each and every column by Shri Imran Ansari further support the fact that the he was maintaining the said data and therefore could explain all these columns with relevance and purpose. Shri Imran Ansari in response to Question no. 22, 23 and 24, has explained in detail the meaning and relevant of each and every column. In column B, against the name of 'Raj Bhai Jain'/'Raj Bhai jain (I.S)', total 27 shops have been entered. Further, these 27 shops ore stated (by Shri Imran Ansari) to be booked by the assessee only. Also, Shri Tabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement during post search proceedings on 19.08.2021 categorically confirmed the admission made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confirmed the data of the said excel to be true by confirming facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari in his statement. It is also important to note here that the phone number mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh Jain. 5.5. Regarding the frequency of updating the said excel file/sheet, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is updated on the same day when a payment is received either in cash or cheque (or banking channel). The column A to AR of the sheet \"Master\" are stated to be updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the said excel Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 file are also stated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in the above response that he takes the parties to Shri Abrar Ahmed (who during the search established to be a person handing cash for the Rubberwala Group). Shri Abrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari who update the diaries and the said excel file. Such detailed mechanism in place further upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari on oath. It is also important to note here that Shri Imran Ansari also used to call and follow up with the buyers on the numbers saved in his data. As aforementioned, the number, for the shops for which the assessee has paid the cash component, is mentioned as 9892196071, which is the assessee's own number. Thus, it makes clear that for the cash payment part, for all the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari used to follow up with Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only…..” 10. We also noticed that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 38428 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 and 3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is reproduced herein below: 12. The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020-21 is with regard to the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash payments relating to the shops purchased by others cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The decision rendered by us in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 on an identical issue on merits in the earlier paragraphs would apply in this year also. Following the same, we affirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 13. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash payment of Rs.18,64,200/- in respect of purchase of shop confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search conducted in their hands, Incriminating documents containing details of cash collected on sale of various shops were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. However, the assessee denied payment of cash. However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the case of Rubberwala group and accordingly made addition of Rs. 18,64,200/- in AY 2020-21. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The id A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third porty statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the same. The AO also did not provide the opportunity of cross examination despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on various case laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. 16. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs.18,64,200/- cannot be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO had placed reliance upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that the above said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the present case. 6.2. It is thus, noted that Coordinate Benches in series of decisions in respect of addition made arising out of search in the case of Rubberwala group have consistently held that addition so made cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party statement and uncorroborated entries found in excel sheet when assessee has denied such allegation of making any cash payment. No independent corroborative evidence is brought on record as well as no opportunity of cross examination given to the assessee on the statements relied upon. 7. Considering the factual position as enumerated above and the long line of judicial precedents on identical issues tabulated above, respectfully following the same, by taking consistent view, we delete the Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA nos. 9440, 9441 and 9442/Mum/2025 Ashok Chunilal Mali AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in this respect are allowed. 8. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 27 March, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 27 March, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1 The assessee 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 5 Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "