BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

ITA 6525/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by the assessee, Bharat Solanki, against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 52, Mumbai, for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The appeals were consolidated due to the commonality of issues and facts. The primary contention was regarding the additions made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, which were based on alleged on-money payments for the purchase of a shop in cash. The Tribunal examined the legality of the additions, considering the procedural lapses and the evidentiary basis of the additions, which included statements from employees of the Rubberwala Group and electronic data from a seized pen drive.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823163 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT, Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO, Hersh W Chadah vs. DDIT, Chairman Mining Board vs. Ramjee, State Bank of Patiala vs. K Sharma, Jay Engg. Works Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Metal Products of India vs. CIT, ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, Kalpetta Estates Ltd vs. CIT, Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. Union of India, Dashrath Jhanglani vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOLGY JOSE T. KOTTARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KUMAR; FURNISHING REASONABLE; FURNISHING REASONABLE; FURNISHING REASONABLE
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained expenditure; Documents seized; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; Search and seizure; Validity of assessment; Opportunity of cross examination; Audi alteram partem; Procedural lapse
• Section: 132; 153A; 131; 69; 69C; 6

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-2020 Bharat Solanki, 9th floor, Flat No. 903, Darshan Height, Ram Mandir Chirabzar, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41-43, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. HHAPS 5899 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These three appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18 to 2019-2020 respectively. Printed from counselvise.com 2. Since all three appeals pertains to same assessee, involving common issue in dispute permeating from similar factual matrix and therefore, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid repetition of facts. The parties agreed to take assessment year 2017-18 as lead case and to follow the decision of the same mutatis mutandis in other years. Accordingly, of the assessee for assessment year 2017 relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 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 contraven 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 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 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 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case in erred in confirming stand of A.O. about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,00,0 3. The ground Nos by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged on-money payment made for purchase of shop in cash and which ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 ree appeals pertains to same assessee, involving common issue in dispute permeating from similar factual matrix and therefore, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and tion of facts. The parties agreed to take assessment year 18 as lead case and to follow the decision of the same mutatis mutandis in other years. Accordingly, firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 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 issued by the CBDT 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. 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. 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 On the facts and circumstances of the case in erred in confirming stand of A.O. about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant. 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. s. 3 to 6 of the appeal relate to addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged money payment made for purchase of shop in cash and which Bharat Solanki 2 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 ree appeals pertains to same assessee, involving common issue in dispute permeating from similar factual matrix and therefore, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and tion of facts. The parties agreed to take assessment year 18 as lead case and to follow the decision of the same mutatis we take up the appeal 18 for adjudication. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 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 tion of the Circular No. 19/2019,dated 14-8-2019 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 material in the satisfaction note issued to the 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 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 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 On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) u/s 69 of the Act. . 3 to 6 of the appeal relate to addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged money payment made for purchase of shop in cash and which Printed from counselvise.com has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The gro has challenged issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act without document identification number which is in violation of Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The ground No. 2 is also a the addition made in proceedings u/s 153C of the Act without any reference to the incriminating material in the satisfaction note. The parties agreed that if the assessee gets relief on the ground on merit of the addition, then gro 4. Briefly stated, the assessee did not file a regular return of income for the assessment year 2017 the relevant period. Subsequently, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income carried out on 17.03.2021 in the case of the “Rubberwala Group”, including M/s Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), its promoters and directors the group, Shri Imran Ansari. 4.1 During the course of the sear recorded from Shri Imran Ansari, a key employee handling sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project, and Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director and Promoter of RHIL. Shri Imran Ansari stated that cash components were re consideration in respect of sale of shops, which statement was stated to have been affirmed by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. A pen drive ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act without document identification number which is in violation of Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The ground No. 2 is also a legal ground challenging the addition made in proceedings u/s 153C of the Act without any reference to the incriminating material in the satisfaction note. The parties agreed that if the assessee gets relief on the ground on merit then ground No. 2 of the appeal may be kept open. Briefly stated, the assessee did not file a regular return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 as he was a minor during the relevant period. Subsequently, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was ed out on 17.03.2021 in the case of the “Rubberwala Group”, including M/s Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), its promoters and directors Shri Tabrez Shaikh and Shri Imran Ansari. During the course of the search, statements on oath were recorded from Shri Imran Ansari, a key employee handling sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project, and Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director and Promoter of RHIL. Shri Imran Ansari stated that cash components were received over and above the registered consideration in respect of sale of shops, which statement was stated to have been affirmed by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. A pen drive Bharat Solanki 3 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 und No. 1, the assessee has challenged issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act without document identification number which is in violation of Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct legal ground challenging the addition made in proceedings u/s 153C of the Act without any reference to the incriminating material in the satisfaction note. The parties agreed that if the assessee gets relief on the ground on merit und No. 2 of the appeal may be kept open. Briefly stated, the assessee did not file a regular return of 18 as he was a minor during the relevant period. Subsequently, a search and seizure action tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was ed out on 17.03.2021 in the case of the “Rubberwala Group”, including M/s Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), and key employee of ch, statements on oath were recorded from Shri Imran Ansari, a key employee handling sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project, and Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director and Promoter of RHIL. Shri Imran Ansari stated ceived over and above the registered consideration in respect of sale of shops, which statement was stated to have been affirmed by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. A pen drive Printed from counselvise.com was also seized from Shri Imran Ansari containing Excel sheets allegedly recording details o and alleged cash components. 4.2 It was noticed from the said Excel sheets that a shop had been booked in the name of the assessee and an aggregate cash payment of ₹12,87,900/- was recorded as having been received o financial years i.e. (i) Rs.1,00,000/ corresponding to assessment year 2017 financial year 2017-18 corresponding to assessment year 2018 (iii) Rs.5,78,700/- in financial year 2018 assessment year 2019 Rs.12,87,900/- has been claimed by Shri Imran Ansari in cash against the shop sold to the assessee sheet. 4.3 On the basis of such material, notice under s the Act was issued to the assessee assessee filed a return assessment was completed under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act on 22.03.2024, wherein the Assess treated the alleged cash component as unexplained expenditure/investment. For the assessment year 2017 order dated 22.03.2024 passed u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act an addition of the Act. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 was also seized from Shri Imran Ansari containing Excel sheets allegedly recording details of shop sales, including names of buyers and alleged cash components. It was noticed from the said Excel sheets that a shop had been booked in the name of the assessee and an aggregate cash payment was recorded as having been received o i.e. (i) Rs.1,00,000/- in financial year 2016 corresponding to assessment year 2017-18 (ii) Rs.6,09,200/ 18 corresponding to assessment year 2018 in financial year 2018-19 corres assessment year 2019-2020. In this manner total amount of has been claimed by Shri Imran Ansari in cash against the shop sold to the assessee based on the excel On the basis of such material, notice under s the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.09.202. In response, the assessee filed a return on 18.10.2022 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act on 22.03.2024, wherein the Assess treated the alleged cash component as unexplained expenditure/investment. For the assessment year 2017 order dated 22.03.2024 passed u/s 153C read with section 153A of an addition of ₹1,00,000/- was made under section 69C of Bharat Solanki 4 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 was also seized from Shri Imran Ansari containing Excel sheets f shop sales, including names of buyers It was noticed from the said Excel sheets that a shop had been booked in the name of the assessee and an aggregate cash payment was recorded as having been received over three in financial year 2016-17 18 (ii) Rs.6,09,200/- in 18 corresponding to assessment year 2018-19 ; 19 corresponding to In this manner total amount of has been claimed by Shri Imran Ansari as received based on the excel On the basis of such material, notice under section 153C of . In response, the declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act on 22.03.2024, wherein the Assessing Officer treated the alleged cash component as unexplained expenditure/investment. For the assessment year 2017-18, in the order dated 22.03.2024 passed u/s 153C read with section 153A of was made under section 69C of Printed from counselvise.com 5. On appeal, the assessee primarily challenged the addition on the ground that (i) the addition was based solely on third statements and documents, (ii) the incriminating material was never supplied to the assessee, and (iii) no opportunity examination of Shri Imran Ansari was granted. on the decision of the Co Jain in ITA No. 3842 and 3841/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2020-21 and 2021-22 on-money payments for purchase of shops in the same project, the additions were deleted however, rejected the contentions of the assessee, holding that the right of cross-examination is not absolute, that opportunity had been granted, and that the material relied upon constituted corroborated digital evidence supported by sworn statements and disclosure by the developer group. citing the various decisions in the impugned order finding of the Assessing Officer on the issue in dispute. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the in short the ‘Tribunal 6. In the grounds raised by the assessee on issue that arises for our consideration is whether, on the facts of the present case, the addition of alleged cash payment can be sustained solely on the basis of third ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the assessee primarily challenged the addition on the ground that (i) the addition was based solely on third statements and documents, (ii) the incriminating material was never supplied to the assessee, and (iii) no opportunity examination of Shri Imran Ansari was granted. The assessee relied the Co-ordinate Bench in the case Jain in ITA No. 3842 and 3841/Mum/2023 for assessment year 22, wherein, on similar facts relat money payments for purchase of shops in the same project, the additions were deleted. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, rejected the contentions of the assessee, holding that the examination is not absolute, that opportunity had been granted, and that the material relied upon constituted corroborated digital evidence supported by sworn statements and disclosure by the developer group. citing the various decisions in the impugned order finding of the Assessing Officer on the issue in dispute. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal’) raising the grounds as reproduced above. In the grounds raised by the assessee on merit , t issue that arises for our consideration is whether, on the facts of the present case, the addition of alleged cash payment can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital records and Bharat Solanki 5 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the assessee primarily challenged the addition on the ground that (i) the addition was based solely on third-party statements and documents, (ii) the incriminating material was never supplied to the assessee, and (iii) no opportunity of cross- The assessee relied in the case of Shri Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 3842 and 3841/Mum/2023 for assessment years wherein, on similar facts relating to alleged money payments for purchase of shops in the same project, the The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, rejected the contentions of the assessee, holding that the examination is not absolute, that adequate opportunity had been granted, and that the material relied upon constituted corroborated digital evidence supported by sworn statements and disclosure by the developer group. The Ld. CIT(A) citing the various decisions in the impugned order, upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer on the issue in dispute. Aggrieved, tax Appellate Tribunal ( raising the grounds as reproduced above. merit , the central issue that arises for our consideration is whether, on the facts of the present case, the addition of alleged cash payment can be party digital records and Printed from counselvise.com statements, without providing the assesse to confront such material. 6.1 The facts, in brief, insofar as they relate to the issue in dispute, are that pursuant to a search action conducted at the premises of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. statements of its promoter and director, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and of a key employee of the group, Shri Imran Ansari, were recorded. Shri Imran Ansari was stated to be handling the sale and registration of shops in the Platinum Mall statement, Shri Imran Ansari deposed that he had been associated with the Rubberwala Group entities since the year 2010 and was, inter alia, entrusted with responsibilities relating to the sale and registration of shops in the Platinum procedure ordinarily followed for sale of the shops. According to him, prospective purchasers would approach him to ascertain the availability of shops, whereupon he would show them the available units. Upon selection by the communicate the particulars of the shop, including the area, rate, registration charges, and other terms and conditions. Shri Imran Ansari further stated that, upon the purchaser agreeing to the terms, a token amount, stated ₹2,00,000/-, was collected in cash, and upon receipt thereof, the shop would be provisionally booked in the name of the purchaser. He claimed that, thereafter, a small diary was handed over to the ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 statements, without providing the assessee an effective opportunity to confront such material. The facts, in brief, insofar as they relate to the issue in dispute, are that pursuant to a search action conducted at the M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. statements of its promoter and director, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and of a key employee of the group, Shri Imran Ansari, were recorded. Shri Imran Ansari was stated to be handling the sale and registration of Platinum Mall project developed by RHIL. In his statement, Shri Imran Ansari deposed that he had been associated with the Rubberwala Group entities since the year 2010 and was, inter alia, entrusted with responsibilities relating to the sale and registration of shops in the Platinum Mall project. He described the procedure ordinarily followed for sale of the shops. According to him, prospective purchasers would approach him to ascertain the availability of shops, whereupon he would show them the available units. Upon selection by the prospective purchaser, he would communicate the particulars of the shop, including the area, rate, registration charges, and other terms and conditions. Shri Imran Ansari further stated that, upon the purchaser agreeing to the terms, a token amount, stated to range between , was collected in cash, and upon receipt thereof, the shop would be provisionally booked in the name of the purchaser. He claimed that, thereafter, a small diary was handed over to the Bharat Solanki 6 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 e an effective opportunity The facts, in brief, insofar as they relate to the issue in dispute, are that pursuant to a search action conducted at the M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (“RHIL”), statements of its promoter and director, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and of a key employee of the group, Shri Imran Ansari, were recorded. Shri Imran Ansari was stated to be handling the sale and registration of ped by RHIL. In his statement, Shri Imran Ansari deposed that he had been associated with the Rubberwala Group entities since the year 2010 and was, inter alia, entrusted with responsibilities relating to the sale and Mall project. He described the procedure ordinarily followed for sale of the shops. According to him, prospective purchasers would approach him to ascertain the availability of shops, whereupon he would show them the available prospective purchaser, he would communicate the particulars of the shop, including the area, rate, registration charges, and other terms and conditions. Shri Imran Ansari further stated that, upon the purchaser agreeing to the to range between ₹50,000/- and , was collected in cash, and upon receipt thereof, the shop would be provisionally booked in the name of the purchaser. He claimed that, thereafter, a small diary was handed over to the Printed from counselvise.com purchaser, wherein the cash would then intimate the details of the transaction to Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Chairman and Managing Director of RHIL. According to him, the balance consideration was thereafter paid by the purchaser in agreed instalments, and u formalities, the shop was registered either in the name of the purchaser or in the name specified by such purchaser. He further explained that the sale price of the shops was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, having regard to factors the shop was situated and its proximity to the atrium. He stated that each floor was divided into four levels based on proximity to the atrium, with Level commanding the highest price, and Le farthest, being priced the lowest. He also stated that the pricing of shops on the lower floors was higher as compared to those situated on the upper floors. 6.2 Further, in response to Question No. 15 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that the total consideration for sale of the shops comprised two components, namely, a cash component and a component payable through banking channels. He further stated that the quantum of the cash component was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. In response to Question No. 16, Shri Imran Ansari deposed that the pricing so determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh was communicated to him orally. In response to Question No. 17, he ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 purchaser, wherein the cash amounts received were noted. He would then intimate the details of the transaction to Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Chairman and Managing Director of RHIL. According to him, the balance consideration was thereafter paid by the purchaser in agreed instalments, and upon completion of the formalities, the shop was registered either in the name of the purchaser or in the name specified by such purchaser. He further explained that the sale price of the shops was determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, having regard to factors such as the floor on which the shop was situated and its proximity to the atrium. He stated that each floor was divided into four levels based on proximity to the atrium, with Level-1 shops, being closest to the atrium, commanding the highest price, and Level-4 shops, being the farthest, being priced the lowest. He also stated that the pricing of shops on the lower floors was higher as compared to those situated Further, in response to Question No. 15 of his statement, Shri sari stated that the total consideration for sale of the shops comprised two components, namely, a cash component and a component payable through banking channels. He further stated that the quantum of the cash component was determined by Shri h. In response to Question No. 16, Shri Imran Ansari deposed that the pricing so determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh was communicated to him orally. In response to Question No. 17, he Bharat Solanki 7 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 amounts received were noted. He would then intimate the details of the transaction to Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Chairman and Managing Director of RHIL. According to him, the balance consideration was thereafter paid by the pon completion of the formalities, the shop was registered either in the name of the purchaser or in the name specified by such purchaser. He further explained that the sale price of the shops was determined by Shri such as the floor on which the shop was situated and its proximity to the atrium. He stated that each floor was divided into four levels based on proximity to 1 shops, being closest to the atrium, 4 shops, being the farthest, being priced the lowest. He also stated that the pricing of shops on the lower floors was higher as compared to those situated Further, in response to Question No. 15 of his statement, Shri sari stated that the total consideration for sale of the shops comprised two components, namely, a cash component and a component payable through banking channels. He further stated that the quantum of the cash component was determined by Shri h. In response to Question No. 16, Shri Imran Ansari deposed that the pricing so determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh was communicated to him orally. In response to Question No. 17, he Printed from counselvise.com stated that the entire data relating to the sale of shops was maintained by him in an Excel sheet. The learned Assessing Officer has reproduced the relevant extracts of Shri Imran Ansari’s statement, covering Questions Nos. 15 to 17, in the impugned assessment order. 6.3 Further, during the course of the search proceedings conducted at the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16 GB pen drive was found and seized from his possession. In his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that the data contained in the said pen drive had been prepared and maintained by him in Excel format. The contents of the Excel sheets retrieved from the pen drive have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 5.4 of the impugned assessment order. Shri Imran Ansari explained that the Excel file, titled multiple sheets, including sheets captioned and “Cheque”, among others. According to Shri Imran Ansari, comprehensive details relating to the sale of shops in the Mall project were recorded in these Excel sheets. He further that the “Master” sheet was particularly detailed, containing data spread across 98 columns. In response to Questions Nos. 22 to 24 in his statements recorded on 17.03.2021 and 20.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari explained the nature and significance of columns maintained in the said sheet. The explanations furnished by Shri Imran Ansari in this regard have been collated and ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 stated that the entire data relating to the sale of shops was him in an Excel sheet. The learned Assessing Officer has reproduced the relevant extracts of Shri Imran Ansari’s statement, covering Questions Nos. 15 to 17, in the impugned Further, during the course of the search proceedings ted at the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16 GB pen drive was found and seized from his possession. In his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that the data contained in the said pen drive had been prepared and maintained by him in Excel at. The contents of the Excel sheets retrieved from the pen drive have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 5.4 of the impugned assessment order. Shri Imran Ansari explained that the Excel file, titled “Consolidated 1 2 3 Balance” multiple sheets, including sheets captioned “Master” , among others. According to Shri Imran Ansari, comprehensive details relating to the sale of shops in the project were recorded in these Excel sheets. He further sheet was particularly detailed, containing data spread across 98 columns. In response to Questions Nos. 22 to 24 in his statements recorded on 17.03.2021 and 20.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari explained the nature and significance of columns maintained in the said sheet. The explanations furnished by Shri Imran Ansari in this regard have been collated and Bharat Solanki 8 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 stated that the entire data relating to the sale of shops was him in an Excel sheet. The learned Assessing Officer has reproduced the relevant extracts of Shri Imran Ansari’s statement, covering Questions Nos. 15 to 17, in the impugned Further, during the course of the search proceedings ted at the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16 GB pen drive was found and seized from his possession. In his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that the data contained in the said pen drive had been prepared and maintained by him in Excel at. The contents of the Excel sheets retrieved from the pen drive have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 5.4 of the impugned assessment order. Shri Imran Ansari explained “Consolidated 1 2 3 Balance”, comprised “Master”, “Payment”, , among others. According to Shri Imran Ansari, comprehensive details relating to the sale of shops in the Platinum project were recorded in these Excel sheets. He further stated sheet was particularly detailed, containing data spread across 98 columns. In response to Questions Nos. 22 to 24 in his statements recorded on 17.03.2021 and 20.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari explained the nature and significance of each of the columns maintained in the said sheet. The explanations furnished by Shri Imran Ansari in this regard have been collated and Printed from counselvise.com reproduced by the Assessing Officer at pages 5 and 6 of the impugned assessment order. reproduced as under: K Token Amount A L Date M Token N Date O 1st inst. Payment P Date Q 2nd Inst. Payment R Date S 3rd Inst. Payment T Date U Penalty V Days Delayed W Due Date X Date Y A Value Z Rev A. Value ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 reproduced by the Assessing Officer at pages 5 and 6 of the impugned assessment order. For ready reference, the said tab reproduced as under: Token Amount A This means the amount in Rs. accepted as token in cash at the time of booking of shop from buyer as mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash mentioned in Column K. Token Amount B This means the amount in Rs. accepted as second token amount in cash from buyer as mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash mentioned in Column M. 1st inst. Payment This means the amount in Rs. accepted as first instalment amount in cash from buyer as mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash mentioned in Column O. 2nd Inst. Payment This means the amount in Rs. accepted as Second instalment amount in cash from buyer as mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash mentioned in Column Q. 3rd Inst. Payment This means the amount in Rs. accepted as third instalment amount in cash from buyer as mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash mentioned in Column S. Penalty This means the estimated penalty to be levied on the basis delayed payments, however the same has never been collected. Days Delayed This means the number of days delayed in the payments of any instalments as mentioned in previous columns. Due Date This means the last due date of payment to be made in cash This means the cut off date to calculate days delayed as mentioned in Column V A Value This means old agreement value of shop in Rs. which has been derived from the old area (as mentioned in column F multiplied by the rates as mentioned above) Rev A. Value This means Revised agreement value in Rs. of shop which has been derived from the revised area (as mentioned in column G mul the rates as mentioned above) Bharat Solanki 9 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 reproduced by the Assessing Officer at pages 5 and 6 of the For ready reference, the said table is This means the amount in Rs. accepted as token in cash at the time of booking of shop from buyer as mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash This means the amount in Rs. accepted as second token amount in cash from buyer as This is the date of the amount paid in cash This means the amount in Rs. accepted as first instalment amount in cash from buyer as This is the date of the amount paid in cash This means the amount in Rs. accepted as Second instalment amount in cash from buyer mentioned in Column B. This is the date of the amount paid in cash This means the amount in Rs. accepted as third instalment amount in cash from buyer as mentioned in Column B. the amount paid in cash This means the estimated penalty to be levied on the basis delayed payments, however the same has never been collected. This means the number of days delayed in the instalments as mentioned in This means the last due date of payment to be This means the cut off date to calculate days delayed as mentioned in Column V This means old agreement value of shop in Rs. which has been derived from the old area (as mentioned in column F multiplied by the rates as mentioned above) This means Revised agreement value in Rs. of shop which has been derived from the revised area (as mentioned in column G multiplied by the rates as mentioned above) Printed from counselvise.com AA G-P AB Rev G- AC Parking A.V. AD 95% AMT AE TOTAL RECVD. CASH 6.4 Shri Imran Ansari also explained different column from A to F of Master sheet as under: Q.22 Please state the meaning of each heading of column in \"Master Sheet\" in the above mentioned excel sheet. Ans. Following are the meaning of each heading of column above mentioned excel sheet: Column Heading A Floor B 0Name C 0Agreement Name D Mobile E Shop No. F Area 6.5 Further, in response to Question No. 26 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari elaborated upon the manner in which buyers were ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 This means the difference between old total value (as mentioned in Column I) and old agreement value of the shop (as mentioned in Column Y) -P This means the difference between Revised total value (as mentioned in Column J) and revised agreement value of the shop (as mentioned in Column Z). Thus, this denotes the cash component of sale related to that particular shop. Parking A.V. This means Parking Agreement Value in addition to agreement value 95% AMT This means 95% of revised total amount as mentioned in Column J TOTAL RECVD. CASH This means the addition of column K, M, O, Q and S. This means total cash amount received from buyer over and above agreement value. Shri Imran Ansari also explained different column from A to F of Master sheet as under: Q.22 Please state the meaning of each heading of column in \"Master Sheet\" in the above mentioned excel sheet. Ans. Following are the meaning of each heading of column in \"Master Sheet\" in the above mentioned excel sheet: Heading Meaning This means the floor number of the project Platinum Mall which has commercial shops. Name This means the name of person who booked the shop in Platinum Mall. Agreement Name This means the name of person in whose name the agreement of the shop in Platinum Mall was done or will be done. Wherever \"IMR\" has been mentioned, it means it has not been sold. This is initial of my name which was put to identify unsold sh Mobile This means the mobile number of the buyer whose name has been mentioned in Column B. Shop No. This means the Shop number on the floor. On each floor, the shop number starts from 1 and goes up to the maximum number. Old Area of the shops Further, in response to Question No. 26 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari elaborated upon the manner in which buyers were Bharat Solanki 10 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 This means the difference between old total value (as mentioned in Column I) and old agreement value of the shop (as mentioned in This means the difference between Revised (as mentioned in Column J) and revised agreement value of the shop (as mentioned in Column Z). Thus, this denotes the cash component of sale related to that This means Parking Agreement Value in addition to agreement value of sale of shop. This means 95% of revised total amount as This means the addition of column K, M, O, Q and S. This means total cash amount received from buyer over and above agreement value. Shri Imran Ansari also explained different column from A to F Q.22 Please state the meaning of each heading of column in \"Master Sheet\" in the in \"Master Sheet\" in the This means the floor number of the project Platinum Mall which has commercial shops. This means the name of person who booked the This means the name of person in whose name the agreement of the shop in Platinum Mall was done or will be done. Wherever \"IMR\" has been mentioned, it means it has not been sold. This is initial of my name which was put to identify unsold shops. This means the mobile number of the buyer whose name has been mentioned in Column B. This means the Shop number on the floor. On each floor, the shop number starts from 1 and goes up to Further, in response to Question No. 26 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari elaborated upon the manner in which buyers were Printed from counselvise.com informed of the payment structure and the procedure followed for collection of amounts through cash and banking channels sake of completeness, the substance of his response is summarised below. Shri Imran Ansari stated that, at the time of booking of a shop, the buyer was informed of the respective components of the consideration payable in cash and through cheque channels. According to him, payments were made by the buyers in accordance with the agreed schedule, and in cases of delay, he would contact the buyers telephonically to remind them of the pending payments. He further stated that cheques were ha over to him by the buyers at the office, which he would thereafter forward to the Accounts Department through an office assistant. In cases where payment was made through bank transfer, the buyer would inform him either telephonically or by way of a m With regard to cash payments, Shri Imran Ansari stated that, after verifying the amount of cash to be accepted from the buyer, he would accompany the buyer to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who was stated to be the cashier of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & and was stationed at the company’s office at Rubberwala House, Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Opposite Agripada Police Station, Mumbai 400011. According to him, the buyer would hand over the cash to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who would thereafter orally the cash to him. He further stated that, upon such confirmation, he would record the details of the cash payment, including the date and amount, in a diary which, according to him, had been provided ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 informed of the payment structure and the procedure followed for collection of amounts through cash and banking channels sake of completeness, the substance of his response is summarised below. Shri Imran Ansari stated that, at the time of booking of a shop, the buyer was informed of the respective components of the consideration payable in cash and through cheque channels. According to him, payments were made by the buyers in accordance with the agreed schedule, and in cases of delay, he would contact the buyers telephonically to remind them of the pending payments. He further stated that cheques were ha over to him by the buyers at the office, which he would thereafter forward to the Accounts Department through an office assistant. In cases where payment was made through bank transfer, the buyer would inform him either telephonically or by way of a m With regard to cash payments, Shri Imran Ansari stated that, after verifying the amount of cash to be accepted from the buyer, he would accompany the buyer to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who was stated M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. and was stationed at the company’s office at Rubberwala House, Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Opposite Agripada Police Station, Mumbai 400011. According to him, the buyer would hand over the cash to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who would thereafter orally confirm receipt of the cash to him. He further stated that, upon such confirmation, he would record the details of the cash payment, including the date and amount, in a diary which, according to him, had been provided Bharat Solanki 11 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 informed of the payment structure and the procedure followed for collection of amounts through cash and banking channels. For the sake of completeness, the substance of his response is summarised below. Shri Imran Ansari stated that, at the time of booking of a shop, the buyer was informed of the respective components of the consideration payable in cash and through cheque or banking channels. According to him, payments were made by the buyers in accordance with the agreed schedule, and in cases of delay, he would contact the buyers telephonically to remind them of the pending payments. He further stated that cheques were handed over to him by the buyers at the office, which he would thereafter forward to the Accounts Department through an office assistant. In cases where payment was made through bank transfer, the buyer would inform him either telephonically or by way of a message. With regard to cash payments, Shri Imran Ansari stated that, after verifying the amount of cash to be accepted from the buyer, he would accompany the buyer to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who was stated Infrastructure Ltd. and was stationed at the company’s office at Rubberwala House, Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Opposite Agripada Police Station, Mumbai – 400011. According to him, the buyer would hand over the cash to confirm receipt of the cash to him. He further stated that, upon such confirmation, he would record the details of the cash payment, including the date and amount, in a diary which, according to him, had been provided Printed from counselvise.com to the buyer at the time of booking of against each such entry. Simultaneously, he claimed to have updated the corresponding entries in his Excel file titled “Consolidated 1 2 3 Balance” statement is reproduced as under: “Q.26 Please and payment is collected in cash and in cheque (or banking channel)? Ans. At the time of booking, the buyer is informed about the components of payment to be made in cash and through cheque or banking channe schedule. In case of non from my mobile and remind them for payments. The buyers handover me the cheques in office which I forward to the Accounts Department through office boy. the buyer intimate me either on call or through message. In case of cash, I verify the amount of cash to be accepted from the buyer and then take the buyer to Mr. Abrar Ahmed (Cashier in M/s Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure L office of at Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited situated at Rubberwala House, Dr. A R Nair Road, Opp. Agripada Police Station, Agripada Mumbai the amount of cash to Mr. Abrar Ahmed. Thereaf Ahmed confirms the cash received from buyer to me orally. Then, I make entry in the diary earlier given to the buyer at the time of booking of shop. I mention the amount of cash along with date of payment in that diary and sign after each en update my Excel File named \"consolidated 1 2 3 balance\" which has been mentioned above. 6.6 Further, in response to Question No. 27 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he would accompany the buyers to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who w handling cash transactions on behalf of the Rubberwala Group. He deposed that, upon receipt of cash from the buyer, Shri Abrar ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 to the buyer at the time of booking of the shop, and would sign against each such entry. Simultaneously, he claimed to have updated the corresponding entries in his Excel file titled “Consolidated 1 2 3 Balance”. For ready reference said is reproduced as under: Q.26 Please state how buyers are informed regarding payments and payment is collected in cash and in cheque (or banking Ans. At the time of booking, the buyer is informed about the components of payment to be made in cash and through cheque or banking channels. Buyers pay the amount as per agreed schedule. In case of non-payment at due time, I call to buyers from my mobile and remind them for payments. The buyers handover me the cheques in office which I forward to the Accounts Department through office boy. In case of bank transfer, the buyer intimate me either on call or through message. In case of cash, I verify the amount of cash to be accepted from the buyer and then take the buyer to Mr. Abrar Ahmed (Cashier in M/s Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited) who also sits in office of at Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited situated at Rubberwala House, Dr. A R Nair Road, Opp. Agripada Police Station, Agripada Mumbai- 400011. Then, the buyer gives the amount of cash to Mr. Abrar Ahmed. Thereafter, Mr. Abrar Ahmed confirms the cash received from buyer to me orally. Then, I make entry in the diary earlier given to the buyer at the time of booking of shop. I mention the amount of cash along with date of payment in that diary and sign after each entry. Parallelly, I update my Excel File named \"consolidated 1 2 3 balance\" which has been mentioned above.” Further, in response to Question No. 27 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he would accompany the buyers to Shri Abrar Ahmed, who was stated to be the person entrusted with handling cash transactions on behalf of the Rubberwala Group. He deposed that, upon receipt of cash from the buyer, Shri Abrar Bharat Solanki 12 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the shop, and would sign against each such entry. Simultaneously, he claimed to have updated the corresponding entries in his Excel file titled For ready reference said part of state how buyers are informed regarding payments and payment is collected in cash and in cheque (or banking Ans. At the time of booking, the buyer is informed about the components of payment to be made in cash and through cheque ls. Buyers pay the amount as per agreed payment at due time, I call to buyers from my mobile and remind them for payments. The buyers handover me the cheques in office which I forward to the In case of bank transfer, the buyer intimate me either on call or through message. In case of cash, I verify the amount of cash to be accepted from the buyer and then take the buyer to Mr. Abrar Ahmed (Cashier in M/s imited) who also sits in office of at Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited situated at Rubberwala House, Dr. A R Nair Road, Opp. Agripada 400011. Then, the buyer gives ter, Mr. Abrar Ahmed confirms the cash received from buyer to me orally. Then, I make entry in the diary earlier given to the buyer at the time of booking of shop. I mention the amount of cash along with date of try. Parallelly, I update my Excel File named \"consolidated 1 2 3 balance\" which Further, in response to Question No. 27 of his statement, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he would accompany the buyers to Shri as stated to be the person entrusted with handling cash transactions on behalf of the Rubberwala Group. He deposed that, upon receipt of cash from the buyer, Shri Abrar Printed from counselvise.com Ahmed would orally confirm such receipt to him, whereafter he would update the relevant corresponding Excel sheets maintained by him. Shri Imran Ansari further stated that the cash so received by Shri Abrar Ahmed was thereafter handed over to Shri Tabrez Shaikh. 6.7 On the basis of the aforesaid Excel sheets ma Imran Ansari, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had booked a shop in the Platinum Mall project and had allegedly made cash payments aggregating to assessment years, namely Assessment Years 201 The Assessing Officer further noted that, pursuant to the search action and the statements recorded from key persons of the Rubberwala Group, the said group had accepted the receipt of unaccounted cash and had offered 8 per cent of such am tax. Relying upon the details reflected in the Excel sheets, the Assessing Officer formed the view that the assessee had incurred unexplained cash expenditure / investment towards the purchase of the said shop. When the assessee sought an opportuni cross-examine the persons whose statements and data were relied upon, the Assessing Officer declined the said request. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the request for cross examination are reproduced in paragraph 9.3 of th assessment order, wherein reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents to hold that the right of cross ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Ahmed would orally confirm such receipt to him, whereafter he would update the relevant entries in the diaries and the corresponding Excel sheets maintained by him. Shri Imran Ansari further stated that the cash so received by Shri Abrar Ahmed was thereafter handed over to Shri Tabrez Shaikh. On the basis of the aforesaid Excel sheets maintained by Shri Imran Ansari, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had booked a shop in the Platinum Mall project and had allegedly made cash payments aggregating to ₹12,87,900/-, spread over three assessment years, namely Assessment Years 2017– The Assessing Officer further noted that, pursuant to the search action and the statements recorded from key persons of the Rubberwala Group, the said group had accepted the receipt of unaccounted cash and had offered 8 per cent of such am tax. Relying upon the details reflected in the Excel sheets, the Assessing Officer formed the view that the assessee had incurred unexplained cash expenditure / investment towards the purchase of the said shop. When the assessee sought an opportuni examine the persons whose statements and data were relied upon, the Assessing Officer declined the said request. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the request for cross examination are reproduced in paragraph 9.3 of th assessment order, wherein reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents to hold that the right of cross-examination is not Bharat Solanki 13 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Ahmed would orally confirm such receipt to him, whereafter he entries in the diaries and the corresponding Excel sheets maintained by him. Shri Imran Ansari further stated that the cash so received by Shri Abrar Ahmed was intained by Shri Imran Ansari, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had booked a shop in the Platinum Mall project and had allegedly made , spread over three –18 to 2019–20. The Assessing Officer further noted that, pursuant to the search action and the statements recorded from key persons of the Rubberwala Group, the said group had accepted the receipt of unaccounted cash and had offered 8 per cent of such amount to tax. Relying upon the details reflected in the Excel sheets, the Assessing Officer formed the view that the assessee had incurred unexplained cash expenditure / investment towards the purchase of the said shop. When the assessee sought an opportunity to examine the persons whose statements and data were relied upon, the Assessing Officer declined the said request. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the request for cross- examination are reproduced in paragraph 9.3 of the impugned assessment order, wherein reliance was placed upon certain judicial examination is not Printed from counselvise.com absolute and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further observed by the Assessing Office according to him, the documents seized during the search proceedings clearly contained the name and PAN of the assessee in relation to the alleged unaccounted transaction, and that the contents of the electronic data had been admitted by the concer person in a statement recorded under section 131 of the Act. On this basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that no circumstances warranting grant of cross on the aforesaid reasoning, the Assessing Officer procee an addition of ₹1,00,000/ 6.8 The relevant finding of the ld AO is reproduced as under “9.3. Further, in respect to the assessee's request for cross examination it is submitted that the right of cross not an absolute right. (Nath International Sales vs. UOI, AIR 1992 (Del) 295). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the right of hearing does not necessarily include right of cross examination. The right of cross examination must dep the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the documents collected during the search and survey proceedings in the case of M/s Bait-Al-Tamur Co., Ashok Chimanlal Mehta) was clearly mentioned in respect of unaccounted purchase of Rs. 13,81,350/ Tamur Co. during the F.Y.2017 Further, these facts in the pendrive were Rajal Narendra Ashar (proprietor of M/s Bait in his statement recorded on oath u/s.131 of the Act, he admitted the fact that the pen drive contained a list of out of books sales. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 absolute and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further observed by the Assessing Office according to him, the documents seized during the search proceedings clearly contained the name and PAN of the assessee in relation to the alleged unaccounted transaction, and that the contents of the electronic data had been admitted by the concer person in a statement recorded under section 131 of the Act. On this basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that no circumstances warranting grant of cross-examination were made out. Accordingly, on the aforesaid reasoning, the Assessing Officer procee 1,00,000/- in the year under consideration. The relevant finding of the ld AO is reproduced as under 9.3. Further, in respect to the assessee's request for cross examination it is submitted that the right of cross examination is not an absolute right. (Nath International Sales vs. UOI, AIR 1992 (Del) 295). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the right of hearing does not necessarily include right of cross examination. The right of cross examination must dep the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the documents collected during the search and survey proceedings in the case of M/s Tamur Co., the name and PAN of the assessee (ACM Ashok Chimanlal Mehta) was clearly mentioned in respect of unaccounted purchase of Rs. 13,81,350/- from M/s Bait Tamur Co. during the F.Y.2017- 18 relevant to A.Y.2018 Further, these facts in the pendrive were also confronted to Shri Rajal Narendra Ashar (proprietor of M/s Bait-Al-Tamur Co.) and in his statement recorded on oath u/s.131 of the Act, he admitted the fact that the pen drive contained a list of out of books sales. Bharat Solanki 14 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 absolute and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further observed by the Assessing Officer that, according to him, the documents seized during the search proceedings clearly contained the name and PAN of the assessee in relation to the alleged unaccounted transaction, and that the contents of the electronic data had been admitted by the concerned person in a statement recorded under section 131 of the Act. On this basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that no circumstances examination were made out. Accordingly, on the aforesaid reasoning, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make in the year under consideration. The relevant finding of the ld AO is reproduced as under: 9.3. Further, in respect to the assessee's request for cross examination is not an absolute right. (Nath International Sales vs. UOI, AIR 1992 (Del) 295). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the right of hearing does not necessarily include right of cross examination. The right of cross examination must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the documents collected during the search and survey proceedings in the case of M/s the name and PAN of the assessee (ACM- Ashok Chimanlal Mehta) was clearly mentioned in respect of from M/s Bait-Al- 18 relevant to A.Y.2018-19. also confronted to Shri Tamur Co.) and in his statement recorded on oath u/s.131 of the Act, he admitted the fact that the pen drive contained a list of out of books sales. Printed from counselvise.com The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court i Mali vs. CIT 256ITR536(Raj.) has held that \"there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey.\" In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished from \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance discussed hereinabove, the request of the assessee rejected.” 6.9 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee for providing cross finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “8.1 The AO have mentioned gist of allega note. In this regard, I have perused the show cause notice issued by the AO. A thorough examination of the said notice reveals that the AO had duly communicated and forwarded the details of the incriminating material relied upon fo assessment. The show cause notice clearly refers to and includes relevant extracts from the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, details regarding the purchase of flats, and data retrieved from pen drives and all of which formed the basis of t Hence, the material in question was made available to the appellant and the principles of natural justice were duly adhered to. 8.2 It is a settled position in law that when the assessee is provided with an adequate opportunity to respond t relied upon, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. In this context, reliance is placed on Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that denial of cross would vitiate proceedings only if the evidence sought to be cross examined was the sole basis of the order and no opportunity was provided at any stage. However, if adequate opportunity is ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256ITR536(Raj.) has held that \"there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey.\" In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it as held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is t he should have material upon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished from \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance discussed hereinabove, the request of the assessee for cross examination is On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee for providing cross-examination. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 8.1 The AO have mentioned gist of allegation in the satisfaction note. In this regard, I have perused the show cause notice issued by the AO. A thorough examination of the said notice reveals that the AO had duly communicated and forwarded the details of the incriminating material relied upon for the purposes of assessment. The show cause notice clearly refers to and includes relevant extracts from the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, details regarding the purchase of flats, and data retrieved from pen drives and all of which formed the basis of the proceedings. Hence, the material in question was made available to the appellant and the principles of natural justice were duly adhered 8.2 It is a settled position in law that when the assessee is provided with an adequate opportunity to respond to the material relied upon, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. In this context, reliance is placed on Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that denial of cross-examinat would vitiate proceedings only if the evidence sought to be cross examined was the sole basis of the order and no opportunity was provided at any stage. However, if adequate opportunity is Bharat Solanki 15 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 n the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256ITR536(Raj.) has held that \"there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it as held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is t he should have material upon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished from \"evidence\" which Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance discussed for cross examination is On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention examination. The relevant tion in the satisfaction note. In this regard, I have perused the show cause notice issued by the AO. A thorough examination of the said notice reveals that the AO had duly communicated and forwarded the details of the r the purposes of assessment. The show cause notice clearly refers to and includes relevant extracts from the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, details regarding the purchase of flats, and data retrieved from pen he proceedings. Hence, the material in question was made available to the appellant and the principles of natural justice were duly adhered 8.2 It is a settled position in law that when the assessee is o the material relied upon, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. In this context, reliance is placed on Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), where the examination would vitiate proceedings only if the evidence sought to be cross- examined was the sole basis of the order and no opportunity was provided at any stage. However, if adequate opportunity is Printed from counselvise.com provided and documents are shared, such proceedings are not rendered invalid. 8.3. In the present case, the AO has clearly provided the necessary material through the show cause notice dated 03.03.2024 and granted the appellant sufficient opportunity to submit a response. Therefore, the argument that there was non supply of material or denial of cross merit and does not hold ground. 8.4. In the case of Chairman Mining Board v. Ramjee 1977 AIR 965 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking la judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential procedural propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as totality of circumstances from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures.\" 8.5. Duties and obligations go hand in hand and the cannot merely harp on technicalities even while failing to discharge the onus laid on him. 8.6. In the case of Hersh W Chadah V. DDIT, 43 SOT 544, the Hon'ble ITAT has held that: \"6.14 It will also be worthwhile to consider the nature of burden of proof on the Assessing Officer for proving a fact or circumstance in the income about the tax liability by the Assessing Officer are to be answered by the assessee by furnishing reasonable and plausible explanations or complete facts or his statement or explanation is contradictory, drawing of suitable inferences and estimation of facts is inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate of facts, unless t capricious.” 8.7. In the above case of Hersh W Chadhavs DDIT, ITA No.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, the Hon'ble ITAT held as follows: ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 provided and documents are shared, such proceedings are not dered invalid. 8.3. In the present case, the AO has clearly provided the necessary material through the show cause notice dated 03.03.2024 and granted the appellant sufficient opportunity to submit a response. Therefore, the argument that there was non ply of material or denial of cross-examination is devoid of merit and does not hold ground. 8.4. In the case of Chairman Mining Board v. Ramjee 1977 AIR 965 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential procedural propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact... If the totality of circumstances from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures.\" 8.5. Duties and obligations go hand in hand and the cannot merely harp on technicalities even while failing to discharge the onus laid on him. 8.6. In the case of Hersh W Chadah V. DDIT, 43 SOT 544, the Hon'ble ITAT has held that:- \"6.14 It will also be worthwhile to consider the nature of burden of proof on the Assessing Officer for proving a fact or circumstance in the income-tax proceedings. The questions raised about the tax liability by the Assessing Officer are to be answered by the assessee by furnishing reasonable and plausible explanations. If assessee is not forthcoming with proper or complete facts or his statement or explanation is contradictory, drawing of suitable inferences and estimation of facts is inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate of facts, unless the inferences or estimates are perverse or 8.7. In the above case of Hersh W Chadhavs DDIT, ITA No.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, the Hon'ble ITAT held as follows: Bharat Solanki 16 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 provided and documents are shared, such proceedings are not 8.3. In the present case, the AO has clearly provided the necessary material through the show cause notice dated 03.03.2024 and granted the appellant sufficient opportunity to submit a response. Therefore, the argument that there was non- examination is devoid of 8.4. In the case of Chairman Mining Board v. Ramjee 1977 AIR 965 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- ndmine, nor a maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential procedural propriety being conditioned by the breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. Courts cannot look at a mere artifact... If the totality of circumstances from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules 8.5. Duties and obligations go hand in hand and the appellant cannot merely harp on technicalities even while failing to 8.6. In the case of Hersh W Chadah V. DDIT, 43 SOT 544, the \"6.14 It will also be worthwhile to consider the nature of burden of proof on the Assessing Officer for proving a fact or tax proceedings. The questions raised about the tax liability by the Assessing Officer are to be answered by the assessee by furnishing reasonable and . If assessee is not forthcoming with proper or complete facts or his statement or explanation is contradictory, drawing of suitable inferences and estimation of facts is inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate he inferences or estimates are perverse or 8.7. In the above case of Hersh W Chadhavs DDIT, ITA No.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, the Hon'ble ITAT held as follows: Printed from counselvise.com \"The tax liability in the cases of suspicious transactions, is to be assessed on surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/ evidence available with AO.\" It was further held as \"6.3 Rules of evidence do not govern the i under the Income sense in which the phrase \"judicial proceedings\" is ordinarily used. The Assessing Officer is not fettered or bound by technical rules about evidence con he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law.\" 8.8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi) held that the Assessing Officer has, no doubt, to hear \"evidence\", but such evidence may consist of material which would be wholly inadmissible in a court of law. 8.9. In CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (Punj. &Har.), it was held that the Assessing Officer may gat information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished from \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial evidence. 8.10. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, 264 ITR 154, the Hon'ble Bombay HC has held that where the transaction does not appear to be overboard, the addition is to be sustained. 8.11. In State Bank of Patiala v. K Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: \"Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that th technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be pe would be a counter further held that \"(6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem [the primary principle of natural justice] the Court/ Tribunal/Authority must al over-riding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 \"The tax liability in the cases of suspicious transactions, is to be the basis of the material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/ evidence available with AO.\" It was further held as \"6.3 Rules of evidence do not govern the income-tax proceedings, as the proceedings under the Income-tax Act are not judicial proceedings in the sense in which the phrase \"judicial proceedings\" is ordinarily used. The Assessing Officer is not fettered or bound by technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law.\" 8.8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi) held that the Assessing ficer has, no doubt, to hear \"evidence\", but such evidence may consist of material which would be wholly inadmissible in a court 8.9. In CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (Punj. &Har.), it was held that the Assessing Officer may gat information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material pon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished from \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial 8.10. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, 264 ITR 154, the Hon'ble Bombay HC has held that where the transaction does r to be overboard, the addition is to be sustained. 8.11. In State Bank of Patiala v. K Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: \"Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise.\" The Hon'ble Court further held that \"(6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem [the primary principle of natural justice] the Court/ Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and riding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is Bharat Solanki 17 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 \"The tax liability in the cases of suspicious transactions, is to be the basis of the material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/ evidence available with AO.\" It was further held as \"6.3 Rules of evidence tax proceedings, as the proceedings tax Act are not judicial proceedings in the sense in which the phrase \"judicial proceedings\" is ordinarily used. The Assessing Officer is not fettered or bound by technical tained in the Indian Evidence Act, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as 8.8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi) held that the Assessing ficer has, no doubt, to hear \"evidence\", but such evidence may consist of material which would be wholly inadmissible in a court 8.9. In CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (Punj. &Har.), it was held that the Assessing Officer may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material pon which to base the assessment; \"material\" as distinguished from \"evidence\" which includes direct and circumstantial 8.10. In ITC Classic Finance Ltd vs DCIT, 264 ITR 154, the Hon'ble Bombay HC has held that where the transaction does r to be overboard, the addition is to be sustained. 8.11. In State Bank of Patiala v. K Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: \"Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally e guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. rverted to achieve the very opposite end. That productive exercise.\" The Hon'ble Court further held that \"(6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem [the primary principle of natural justice] the Court/ ways bear in mind the ultimate and riding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is Printed from counselvise.com this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations tha 8.12. Right to Cross not absolute in nature. (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of J&K Vs. Bakshi GulamMohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122 and in the case of Nath International right of hearing does not include a right to cross right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statue concerned. (ii) In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Ass (Bom.Trib) 308, it was held that under the dictum of 'Audi Alteram Partem', the right to cross made adverse report is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the said dictum. The principles of natural do not require formal cross examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the rules of evidence, and is the creation of Court. It is part of legal and statutory justice, and not a part of natural justic it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue could not rely on any evidence which had not been subjected to cross directly incriminating statement and the addition in the assessment is based solely or mainly on such statement, in that eventuality it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to allow cross- examination. Adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. (iii) In Kanungo& Company vs Collector of Customs And Ors. on 7 February, 1972, AIR 1972 SC 2136, a 3 judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that \"We m question of breach of natural justice. On the material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was se the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them.\" 8.12. Right to Cross-examination as held in various decisions, is not absolute in nature. (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of J&K Vs. Bakshi GulamMohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122 and in the case of Nath International Sales Vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del 295 that the right of hearing does not include a right to cross-examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statue concerned. (ii) In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Bom.Trib) 308, it was held that under the dictum of 'Audi Alteram Partem', the right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the said dictum. The principles of natural do not require formal cross- examination. Formal cross examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the rules of evidence, and is the creation of Court. It is part of legal and statutory justice, and not a part of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue could not rely on any evidence which had not been subjected to cross-examination. However, if a witness has given directly incriminating statement and the addition in the assessment is based solely or mainly on such statement, in that eventuality it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to allow examination. Adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the sessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. (iii) In Kanungo& Company vs Collector of Customs And Ors. on 7 February, 1972, AIR 1972 SC 2136, a 3 judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that \"We may first deal with the question of breach of natural justice. On the material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was set out and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross-examine them. In our-opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross Bharat Solanki 18 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to examination as held in various decisions, is (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of J&K Vs. Bakshi GulamMohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122 and in the case Sales Vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del 295 that the examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of tt. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Bom.Trib) 308, it was held that under the dictum of 'Audi examine the witness who made adverse report is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the said dictum. The principles of natural justice examination. Formal cross- examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the rules of evidence, and is the creation of Court. It is part of legal e, therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue could not rely on any evidence which had not been examination. However, if a witness has given directly incriminating statement and the addition in the assessment is based solely or mainly on such statement, in that eventuality it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to allow examination. Adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the sessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or (iii) In Kanungo& Company vs Collector of Customs And Ors. on 7 February, 1972, AIR 1972 SC 2136, a 3 judge bench of the ay first deal with the question of breach of natural justice. On the material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show-cause notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the t out and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross- Printed from counselvise.com examined by them on the statements Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant.\" It was further held in para 13 as \"What the impugned order does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates aga and then states that the appellant had not been able to meet the inferences arising there from. In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the burden of proof had shifted on to the appellant after the Customs appellant of the results of the enquiries and investigations.\". (iv) In Surjeet Singh Chhabravs Union of India &Ors on 25 October, 1996, the Hon'ble SC held that cross not an absolute right. This case was cited Pradesh High Court in its order dated 31.10.2017 in M/s Manidhari Stainless Wire Private Limited Vs. Union of India, (Writ Petition No. 5917 of 2017), wherein it held \"25. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was with a case arising under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Customs Act. Though the decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra was a very brief order, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the denial of cross the violation of the principles of natural justice. (v) In the case of Telestar Travels Pvt. LtdvsSpecial Director of Enforcement dated 13.02.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1306 2013(arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15546 The question, however, is whether failure to permit the party to cross examine has resulted in any prejudice so as to call for reversal of the orders and a de novo enquiry into the matter. The answer to that question would depend upon the facts and circumstances of \"the refusal of the Adjudicating Authority to permit cross examination of the witnesses producing the documents cannot even on the principles of Evidence Act be found fault with. At any rate, the disclosure of opportunity given to them to rebut and explain the same was a substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. That being so, there was and could be no prejudice to the appellants nor was any demonstrat the Courts below\". 8.13. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2 to 4, raised by appellant stand dismissed.” ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant.\" It was further held in para 13 as \"What the impugned order does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates against the version of the appellant and then states that the appellant had not been able to meet the inferences arising there from. In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the burden of proof had shifted on to the appellant after the Customs Authorities had informed the appellant of the results of the enquiries and investigations.\". (iv) In Surjeet Singh Chhabravs Union of India &Ors on 25 October, 1996, the Hon'ble SC held that cross-examination was not an absolute right. This case was cited by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in its order dated 31.10.2017 in M/s Manidhari Stainless Wire Private Limited Vs. Union of India, (Writ Petition No. 5917 of 2017), wherein it held \"25. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was with a case arising under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Customs Act. Though the decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra was a very brief order, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the denial of cross-examination tantamounted t the violation of the principles of natural justice. (v) In the case of Telestar Travels Pvt. LtdvsSpecial Director of Enforcement dated 13.02.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1306 2013(arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15546-15549 of 2008), \"18. on, however, is whether failure to permit the party to cross examine has resulted in any prejudice so as to call for reversal of the orders and a de novo enquiry into the matter. The answer to that question would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case\". It was further held in para 20 as \"the refusal of the Adjudicating Authority to permit cross examination of the witnesses producing the documents cannot even on the principles of Evidence Act be found fault with. At any rate, the disclosure of the documents to the appellants and the opportunity given to them to rebut and explain the same was a substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. That being so, there was and could be no prejudice to the appellants nor was any demonstrated by the appellants before us or before the Courts below\". 8.13. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2 to 4, raised by appellant stand Bharat Solanki 19 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant.\" It was further held in para 13 as \"What the impugned order does is that it refers to the evidence inst the version of the appellant and then states that the appellant had not been able to meet the inferences arising there from. In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the burden of proof had shifted on to the Authorities had informed the appellant of the results of the enquiries and investigations.\". (iv) In Surjeet Singh Chhabravs Union of India &Ors on 25 examination was by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in its order dated 31.10.2017 in M/s Manidhari Stainless Wire Private Limited Vs. Union of India, (Writ Petition No. 5917 of 2017), wherein it held \"25. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was concerned with a case arising under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Customs Act. Though the decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra was a very brief order, the Supreme Court rejected the examination tantamounted to (v) In the case of Telestar Travels Pvt. LtdvsSpecial Director of Enforcement dated 13.02.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1306-1309 of 15549 of 2008), \"18. on, however, is whether failure to permit the party to cross examine has resulted in any prejudice so as to call for reversal of the orders and a de novo enquiry into the matter. The answer to that question would depend upon the facts and each case\". It was further held in para 20 as \"the refusal of the Adjudicating Authority to permit cross examination of the witnesses producing the documents cannot even on the principles of Evidence Act be found fault with. At any the documents to the appellants and the opportunity given to them to rebut and explain the same was a substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. That being so, there was and could be no prejudice to the appellants ed by the appellants before us or before 8.13. Accordingly, Grounds No. 2 to 4, raised by appellant stand Printed from counselvise.com 6.10 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that addition was made solely on the third pa without any documentary evidence or the proof of cash transaction relating to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the detailed statement of Shri Imaran Ansari and concluded that Rubberwala Group itself admitted that having such on same as additional income and not case of unverified rather one of authenticated and corroborated supported by sworn statements of persons directly transaction upheld by the developer group by way of income disclosure. The Ld. CIT(A) distinguished the decision in the case of Rajesh Jain relied upon by the assessee observing as under: “10.6 Further the Appellant has referred to a decisi Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal decision delivered in the case of Rajesh Jain (ITA Nos. 3842 & 3841/MUM/2023 for the A Y 2020 Y 2021-22). I would like to reproduce relevant para for sake of convenience as under \"15. The Id A.R submitted that the basis of third party 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 acknowl 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 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. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that addition was made solely on the third pa without any documentary evidence or the proof of cash transaction relating to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the detailed statement of Shri Imaran Ansari and concluded that Rubberwala Group itself admitted that having such on-money additional income and paid taxes thereon. Thus, unverified scribbling or anonymous documents, but authenticated and corroborated digital evidence, supported by sworn statements of persons directly transaction upheld by the developer group by way of income disclosure. The Ld. CIT(A) distinguished the decision in the case of Rajesh Jain relied upon by the assessee observing as under: 10.6 Further the Appellant has referred to a decisi Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal decision delivered in the case of Rajesh Jain (ITA Nos. 3842 & 3841/MUM/2023 for the A Y 2020 22). I would like to reproduce relevant para for sake of convenience as under- \"15. The Id A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party 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 by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has 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 e Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. Bharat Solanki 20 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that addition was made solely on the third party statement without any documentary evidence or the proof of cash transaction relating to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the detailed statement of Shri Imaran Ansari and concluded that Rubberwala money and offered the paid taxes thereon. Thus, this was scribbling or anonymous documents, but digital evidence, supported by sworn statements of persons directly involved in the transaction upheld by the developer group by way of income disclosure. The Ld. CIT(A) distinguished the decision in the case of Rajesh Jain relied upon by the assessee observing as under: 10.6 Further the Appellant has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal decision delivered in the case of Rajesh Jain (ITA Nos. 3842 & 3841/MUM/2023 for the A Y 2020-21 & A 22). I would like to reproduce relevant para for sake of addition was made on the basis of third party 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 edged. 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 by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has 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 e Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 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 assess made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs. 18,64,200/ sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under: 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala g 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 se 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. 18. The assessee has raised ce regard to the validity of assessment passed u/s 153A of the Act. According to the assessee, the AO should have initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act only for making the above said addition, since the impugned addition has b basis of material found in the search conducted in the hands of third parties. We noticed earlier that the search has also been conducted in the hands of the assessee also and consequent thereto the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act have been in the hands of the assessee. Further, the assessment of AYs 2020-21 and 2021 assessments\". The law is well settled now that, in the case of abated assessments, the AO is entitled to take into account the materials, that is not only those materials that were unearthed during the course of search in the hands of the assessee, but also any other material that may come to his notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, in our view, the AO was very much entitled to take into account the information obtained from the search conducted in the hands of Rubberwala group for these two years. Hence, there was no necessity to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 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 mployee 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/- sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under: 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. 18. The assessee has raised certain legal contentions with regard to the validity of assessment passed u/s 153A of the Act. According to the assessee, the AO should have initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act only for making the above said addition, since the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found in the search conducted in the hands of third parties. We noticed earlier that the search has also been conducted in the hands of the assessee also and consequent thereto the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act have been in the hands of the assessee. Further, the assessment of AYs 21 and 2021-22 would fall under the category of \"abated assessments\". The law is well settled now that, in the case of abated assessments, the AO is entitled to take into account the materials, that is not only those materials that were unearthed during the course of search in the hands of the assessee, but also any other material that may come to his notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, in our view, O was very much entitled to take into account the information obtained from the search conducted in the hands of Rubberwala group for these two years. Hence, there was no necessity to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Bharat Solanki 21 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 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 mployee 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 ee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the - cannot be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under:- 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to roup, 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 rious 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 rtain legal contentions with regard to the validity of assessment passed u/s 153A of the Act. According to the assessee, the AO should have initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act only for making the above said een made on the basis of material found in the search conducted in the hands of third parties. We noticed earlier that the search has also been conducted in the hands of the assessee also and consequent thereto the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act have been initiated in the hands of the assessee. Further, the assessment of AYs 22 would fall under the category of \"abated assessments\". The law is well settled now that, in the case of abated assessments, the AO is entitled to take into account all the materials, that is not only those materials that were unearthed during the course of search in the hands of the assessee, but also any other material that may come to his notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, in our view, O was very much entitled to take into account the information obtained from the search conducted in the hands of Rubberwala group for these two years. Hence, there was no necessity to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com Accordingly, we are of the vie u/s 153C of the Act will not disentitle the AO toconsider those materials in an abated assessment years. Accordingly, we reject these legal grounds of the assessee. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of th 18,64,200/- made by the AO cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete this addition.\" 13. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash paymen confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the purchase commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search condu 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 paymen 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 same. 15. The Id A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party 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 with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party stat 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 10.7 I have gone through the above Hon'ble ITAT decision. It is well known fact that the decisions of higher judicial authorities are binding on lower authorities and this aspect needs no reiteration. However, the above distinguishable on facts compared to the present appeal. In the above mentioned case the assesseee Shri Rajesh Jain was also covered by the IT Department by a search action u/s 132 of the IT Act. In the present case, no such search action ha ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Accordingly, we are of the view that non-initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act will not disentitle the AO toconsider those materials in an abated assessment years. Accordingly, we reject these legal grounds of the assessee. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the addition of Rs. made by the AO cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete this addition.\" 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 purchase 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 paymen However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the case of Rubberwala group and accordingly made addition of Rs. in AY 2020-21. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The Id A.R submitted that the addition was made on is of third party 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 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. 10.7 I have gone through the above Hon'ble ITAT decision. It is well known fact that the decisions of higher judicial authorities are binding on lower authorities and this aspect needs no reiteration. However, the above-mentioned case law is distinguishable on facts compared to the present appeal. In the above mentioned case the assesseee Shri Rajesh Jain was also covered by the IT Department by a search action u/s 132 of the IT Act. In the present case, no such search action ha Bharat Solanki 22 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act will not disentitle the AO toconsider those materials in an abated assessment years. Accordingly, we reject these legal grounds of the assessee. 19. In view of the foregoing e view that the addition of Rs. made by the AO cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to 13. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged in respect of purchase of shop 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the purchase commercial premises developed by Rubberwala cted 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. 21. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The Id A.R submitted that the addition was made on is of third party 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 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 by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has ement 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 addition should be deleted. 10.7 I have gone through the above Hon'ble ITAT decision. It is well known fact that the decisions of higher judicial authorities are binding on lower authorities and this aspect needs no ed case law is distinguishable on facts compared to the present appeal. In the above mentioned case the assesseee Shri Rajesh Jain was also covered by the IT Department by a search action u/s 132 of the IT Act. In the present case, no such search action has been Printed from counselvise.com carried out in the case of the appellant. Thus, this case is distinguishable on facts. 10.8 Further, at the same time, it is seen that full facts were not placed before the Hon'ble ITAT and it has also not been examined that Excel sheet clearly stat component both. Imran Ashfaque Ansari was employee of Rubberwala group and his statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Imran Ansari was questioned responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, he stated that he had been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter sale and registration of the shops in \"Platinu M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL, that he was handling said excel sheet. It was not case where unrelated person statements were recorded. This statement was further reinforced by Shri Tabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and P of RHIL, in his post verified the contents of the Excel file and affirmed the truth of Shri Imran Ansari's statement. Moreover, the Rubberwala Group itself admitted to having received such on component), offered the same as additional income, and paid taxes thereon. 10.9 Further, proposition of law laid down discussed in para (supra) was not placed before the Hon'ble ITAT, which clearly establish that when statements are relied upon by the Department as secondary evidence in collaboration with other evidences, then the denial of right to cross taken as plea to not make the addition. Therefore, decision relied upon by the assessee, in my considered opinion, is not of any help to him. 10.10 Thus, Hon'ble ITAT decision relied upon by the appellant does not aid his case. Unlike the present matter, where there is clear linkage between the documents found, the assessee's transaction, and the admission of parties involved, the cases cited by the appellant pertain to instances where uncorroborated third- party statements were the sole basis of addition. Here, the evidence is not only specific but also substantiated. 10.11 It is well established in law that income are not governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable in a court of law. In Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi), it was held that the AO can rely on material which may not be admissible in a court of law, as long as it is relevant. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 carried out in the case of the appellant. Thus, this case is distinguishable on facts. 10.8 Further, at the same time, it is seen that full facts were not placed before the Hon'ble ITAT and it has also not been examined that Excel sheet clearly stated the agreement value as well cash component both. Imran Ashfaque Ansari was employee of Rubberwala group and his statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, he stated that he had 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, that he was handling said excel sheet. It was not case where unrelated person statements were recorded. This statement was further reinforced by Shri Tabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and P of RHIL, in his post-search deposition dated 19.08.2021. He verified the contents of the Excel file and affirmed the truth of Shri Imran Ansari's statement. Moreover, the Rubberwala Group itself admitted to having received such on-money (cash nent), offered the same as additional income, and paid taxes thereon. 10.9 Further, proposition of law laid down discussed in para (supra) was not placed before the Hon'ble ITAT, which clearly establish that when statements are relied upon by the t as secondary evidence in collaboration with other evidences, then the denial of right to cross-examination cannot be taken as plea to not make the addition. Therefore, decision relied upon by the assessee, in my considered opinion, is not of any 10.10 Thus, Hon'ble ITAT decision relied upon by the appellant does not aid his case. Unlike the present matter, where there is clear linkage between the documents found, the assessee's transaction, and the admission of parties involved, the cases ted by the appellant pertain to instances where uncorroborated party statements were the sole basis of addition. Here, the evidence is not only specific but also substantiated. 10.11 It is well established in law that income-tax proceedings governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable in a court of law. In Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi), it was held that the AO can rely on material which may not be admissible in a court of law, as long as it is relevant. Bharat Solanki 23 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 carried out in the case of the appellant. Thus, this case is 10.8 Further, at the same time, it is seen that full facts were not placed before the Hon'ble ITAT and it has also not been examined ed the agreement value as well cash component both. Imran Ashfaque Ansari was employee of Rubberwala group and his statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, he stated that he had been working with alia handling m Mall\" Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL, that he was handling said excel sheet. It was not case where unrelated person statements were recorded. This statement was further reinforced by Shri Tabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter search deposition dated 19.08.2021. He verified the contents of the Excel file and affirmed the truth of Shri Imran Ansari's statement. Moreover, the Rubberwala Group money (cash nent), offered the same as additional income, and paid 10.9 Further, proposition of law laid down discussed in para (supra) was not placed before the Hon'ble ITAT, which clearly establish that when statements are relied upon by the t as secondary evidence in collaboration with other examination cannot be taken as plea to not make the addition. Therefore, decision relied upon by the assessee, in my considered opinion, is not of any 10.10 Thus, Hon'ble ITAT decision relied upon by the appellant does not aid his case. Unlike the present matter, where there is clear linkage between the documents found, the assessee's transaction, and the admission of parties involved, the cases ted by the appellant pertain to instances where uncorroborated party statements were the sole basis of addition. Here, the tax proceedings governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable in a court of law. In Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi), it was held that the AO can rely on material which may not be admissible in a court of law, as long as it is relevant. Printed from counselvise.com Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) held that the AO can collect evidence behind the back of the assessee, provided it is material and forms the basis of assessment. 10.12 The Hon'ble 544] and Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT, ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, has further clarified that in cases of suspicious transactions, tax liability is to be assessed based on surrounding circumstances, prepondera and the material available on record. The AO is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act but must act on material that is relevant and reliable. 10.13 In ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [264 ITR 154], the Hon'ble Bombay Hi lacked transparency, reinforcing the principle that apparent deficiencies in evidence must be considered in light of surrounding corroborative circumstances. 10.14 In the case of CIT vs Kalpetta Estates Ltd, 211 Taxman 265, the Hon'ble Kerala HC held as under: 4. What the Bench did was to affirm that the principles of res judicata will not apply to income the Tribunal may place reliance on an earlier decision to support its conclusion. It could not, therefore, be said that the decision in the assessee's case before us, relating to the prior years, would operate as res judicata. The Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter, if new materials were placed o closer and more intelligent analysis. It is evident from the various decisions placed before us that a different aspect of the matter has been presented for consideration, as laid down in the decisions mentioned earlier. The Tribunal was therefore e to have a fresh look at the matter based on the line of thinking disclosed by these decisions. That was what was done by the Tribunal in the instant case. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept the contention that the assessment in the earlier y operates as res judicata or that it precludes the assessee from raising the plea as done in the instant case. We overrule the contention. 10.15 The appellant's argument that the absence of a diary (as claimed by the employee of the Rubberwala Group) disproves the entire case is fallacious. The addition was not based on the alleged diary alone, but on robust and corroborated digital ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 imilarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) held that the AO can collect evidence behind the back of the assessee, provided it is material and forms the basis of assessment. 10.12 The Hon'ble ITAT in Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT [43 SOT 544] and Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT, ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, has further clarified that in cases of suspicious transactions, tax liability is to be assessed based on surrounding circumstances, preponderance of probabilities, human conduct, and the material available on record. The AO is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act but must act on material that is relevant and 10.13 In ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [264 ITR 154], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld additions where transactions lacked transparency, reinforcing the principle that apparent deficiencies in evidence must be considered in light of surrounding corroborative circumstances. 10.14 In the case of CIT vs Kalpetta Estates Ltd, 211 ITR 635, 78 Taxman 265, the Hon'ble Kerala HC held as under: 4. What the Bench did was to affirm that the principles of res judicata will not apply to income-tax proceedings. Nevertheless, the Tribunal may place reliance on an earlier decision to support its conclusion. It could not, therefore, be said that the decision in the assessee's case before us, relating to the prior years, would operate as res judicata. The Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter, if new materials were placed o closer and more intelligent analysis. It is evident from the various decisions placed before us that a different aspect of the matter has been presented for consideration, as laid down in the decisions mentioned earlier. The Tribunal was therefore e to have a fresh look at the matter based on the line of thinking disclosed by these decisions. That was what was done by the Tribunal in the instant case. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept the contention that the assessment in the earlier y operates as res judicata or that it precludes the assessee from raising the plea as done in the instant case. We overrule the 10.15 The appellant's argument that the absence of a diary (as claimed by the employee of the Rubberwala Group) disproves the entire case is fallacious. The addition was not based on the alleged diary alone, but on robust and corroborated digital Bharat Solanki 24 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 imilarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) held that the AO can collect evidence behind the back of the assessee, provided it is material and forms the basis of assessment. ITAT in Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT [43 SOT 544] and Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT, ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005, has further clarified that in cases of suspicious transactions, tax liability is to be assessed based on surrounding nce of probabilities, human conduct, and the material available on record. The AO is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act but must act on material that is relevant and 10.13 In ITC Classic Finance Ltd. v. DCIT [264 ITR 154], the gh Court upheld additions where transactions lacked transparency, reinforcing the principle that apparent deficiencies in evidence must be considered in light of ITR 635, 78 4. What the Bench did was to affirm that the principles of res tax proceedings. Nevertheless, the Tribunal may place reliance on an earlier decision to support its conclusion. It could not, therefore, be said that the decision in the assessee's case before us, relating to the prior years, would operate as res judicata. The Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter, if new materials were placed or on a closer and more intelligent analysis. It is evident from the various decisions placed before us that a different aspect of the matter has been presented for consideration, as laid down in the decisions mentioned earlier. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to have a fresh look at the matter based on the line of thinking disclosed by these decisions. That was what was done by the Tribunal in the instant case. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept the contention that the assessment in the earlier years operates as res judicata or that it precludes the assessee from raising the plea as done in the instant case. We overrule the 10.15 The appellant's argument that the absence of a diary (as claimed by the employee of the Rubberwala Group) disproves the entire case is fallacious. The addition was not based on the alleged diary alone, but on robust and corroborated digital Printed from counselvise.com evidence, supported by multiple sworn depositions and voluntarily admitted by the developer group. 10.16 Accordingly, given the detailed evidentiary support, corroboration by key persons, and admission by the builder group, the addition made by the AO is legally an justified.” 7. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 58 and relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities. T reiterated that the addition rests enti found during the search of the Rubberwala Group and on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari. It was submitted that:  no document bearing the assessee’s handwriting or signature was found,  no diary or receipt allegedly maintained f cash was recovered either from the assessee or during search of the group, and  despite specific request, the assessee was neither furnished the complete material nor allowed to cross whose statement formed the sole basis 7.1 It was further contended that the disclosure of income by the Rubberwala Group at 8% of the alleged cash receipts was a self serving declaration, possibly motivated by tax considerations, and could not, by itself, establish that the a any cash. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 supported by multiple sworn depositions and voluntarily admitted by the developer group. 10.16 Accordingly, given the detailed evidentiary support, corroboration by key persons, and admission by the builder group, the addition made by the AO is legally an Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 58 and relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated that the addition rests entirely on third found during the search of the Rubberwala Group and on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari. It was submitted that: no document bearing the assessee’s handwriting or signature no diary or receipt allegedly maintained for acknowledging cash was recovered either from the assessee or during search of the group, and despite specific request, the assessee was neither furnished the complete material nor allowed to cross-examine the person whose statement formed the sole basis of the addition It was further contended that the disclosure of income by the Rubberwala Group at 8% of the alleged cash receipts was a self serving declaration, possibly motivated by tax considerations, and could not, by itself, establish that the assessee had actually paid Bharat Solanki 25 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 supported by multiple sworn depositions and 10.16 Accordingly, given the detailed evidentiary support, corroboration by key persons, and admission by the builder group, the addition made by the AO is legally and factually Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 58 and relied on the submissions made before he learned counsel for the assessee rely on third-party material found during the search of the Rubberwala Group and on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari. It was submitted that: no document bearing the assessee’s handwriting or signature or acknowledging cash was recovered either from the assessee or during search despite specific request, the assessee was neither furnished examine the person of the addition. It was further contended that the disclosure of income by the Rubberwala Group at 8% of the alleged cash receipts was a self- serving declaration, possibly motivated by tax considerations, and ssessee had actually paid Printed from counselvise.com 7.2 The Ld. counsel further submitted that Co the Tribunal in few other cases has also deleted the addition of the alleged on-money paid in cash to “Rubberwala” group for purchase of shop in “Platinum mall”, Mumbai. 7.3 On the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival submission of parties and perused relevant material on record. our consideration is whether, on the facts of addition of alleged cash payment “Platinum Mall” can be sustained solely on the basis of third digital records and statements, without providing the assessee an effective opportunity to confro 8.1 It is undisputed that the entire foundation of the impugned addition consists of: from Shri Imran Ansari, a number and amount of the cash receipt of cash on behalf of the Rubberwala Group was being handed over to director of the company Shri Tabrez Shaikh 8.2 On the basis of the said material and the statement person from their premises, the said company has accepted the fact ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 The Ld. counsel further submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in few other cases has also deleted the addition of the money paid in cash to “Rubberwala” group for purchase of shop in “Platinum mall”, Mumbai. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. We have heard rival submission of parties and perused relevant material on record. The limited controversy our consideration is whether, on the facts of the present case, the addition of alleged cash payment in relation to purchase of shop at can be sustained solely on the basis of third digital records and statements, without providing the assessee an effective opportunity to confront such material. It is undisputed that the entire foundation of the impugned : (i) Excel sheets found in a pen drive seized from Shri Imran Ansari, a third party containing name, shop number and amount of the cash, and (ii) his statement admitting receipt of cash on behalf of the Rubberwala Group was being handed over to director of the company Shri Tabrez On the basis of the said material and the statement from their premises, the said company has accepted the fact Bharat Solanki 26 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in few other cases has also deleted the addition of the money paid in cash to “Rubberwala” group for purchase e learned Departmental Representative We have heard rival submission of parties and perused limited controversy that arises for the present case, the in relation to purchase of shop at can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital records and statements, without providing the assessee an It is undisputed that the entire foundation of the impugned (i) Excel sheets found in a pen drive seized third party containing name, shop atement admitting receipt of cash on behalf of the Rubberwala Group and that cash was being handed over to director of the company Shri Tabrez On the basis of the said material and the statements of key from their premises, the said company has accepted the fact Printed from counselvise.com of the on-money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income. on record to demonstrate actual payment of cash by the assessee. There is no receipt, no diary, no acknowledgment, no contemporaneous document, and no corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, apart from the third party record. 8.3 But the issue arises found in possession of the third party and the disclosure made by them, bind addition without providing opportunity of confronting the material to the assessee. 8.4 In the case assessment has been ini and under the provisions of section 153C of the Act material pertaining to the assessee which is basis of the recording of satisfaction u/s 153C Officer of the assessee. But despite speci no such material was provided to the assessee. T sought for the opportunity to cross both the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) has declined on the ground that was not the sole that no other evidence has been brought on record by the lower authorities to substantiate that the cash on ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income. No independent evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate actual payment of cash by the assessee. There is no receipt, no diary, no acknowledgment, no contemporaneous document, and no corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, apart from the third arises is whether on the basis of the mater found in possession of the third party, statement of the third party d the disclosure made by them, bind the assessee for the addition without providing opportunity of confronting the material In the case assessment has been initiated u/s 153C of the Act and under the provisions of section 153C of the Act material pertaining to the assessee which is basis of the recording of satisfaction u/s 153C must have been forwarded to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. But despite specific request by the assessee was provided to the assessee. The assessee also sought for the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari but both the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) has declined on the ground that was not the sole basis for making addition. But we find that no other evidence has been brought on record by the lower authorities to substantiate that the cash on-money was actually Bharat Solanki 27 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit No independent evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate actual payment of cash by the assessee. There is no receipt, no diary, no acknowledgment, no contemporaneous document, and no corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, apart from the third- is whether on the basis of the material statement of the third party the assessee for the addition without providing opportunity of confronting the material tiated u/s 153C of the Act and under the provisions of section 153C of the Act material pertaining to the assessee which is basis of the recording of forwarded to the Assessing fic request by the assessee he assessee also examine Shri Imran Ansari but both the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) has declined on the basis for making addition. But we find that no other evidence has been brought on record by the lower money was actually Printed from counselvise.com paid by the assessee to Shri Imran Ansari accept confession Imran Ansari. 8.5 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against offering 8% of declaration. In other words, they have generated huge amount of income in their hands at declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% on the Rs.8 which assessee submitted that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they have admitted and paid the taxes. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid such cash on-money and it might be their own money which they had brought into books in garb of cash on 8.6 We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. 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. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 paid by the assessee to Shri Imran Ansari accept confession e Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against offering 8% of income on such . In other words, they have generated huge amount of income in their hands at 33% of tax on the 8% income declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they have admitted and paid the taxes. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid money and it might be their own money which they o books in garb of cash on-money for tax benefit. We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. 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 essee’s investment or expenditure. Bharat Solanki 28 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 paid by the assessee to Shri Imran Ansari accept confession of Shri e Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its income on such . In other words, they have generated huge amount of income of the cash declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ The Ld. counsel for the that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid money and it might be their own money which they money for tax benefit. We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 8.7 The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after cash from the customers a small diary containing cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been recovered from the assessee nor any Rubberwala Group having s from the premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search such document in the form corroborate statement of Shri Imran Ansari Imran Ansari cooked up for benefiting interest of their company. 8.8 We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari him cash payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search actio weakens the evidentiary value of the statement. 8.9 Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt mers a small diary was being used to provide containing cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by Rubberwala Group having signature of the assessee has been found from the premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer search was conducted by the Department but no such document in the form of diary was found which statement of Shri Imran Ansari. According to him, cooked up a story of cash on-money in his for benefiting interest of their company. We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari him cash payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search action. This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the statement. Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in Bharat Solanki 29 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of receipt of alleged was being used to provide containing cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been of receipt issued by ignature of the assessee has been found from the premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer was conducted by the Department but no of diary was found which could . According to him, Shri money in his statement We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari himself stated that cash payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no n. This materially Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in Printed from counselvise.com entirety. The assessee also specifically sought cross Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet maintained by the same person. 8.10 It is well settled that while income governed by strict rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of effective opportunity to rebut or cross-examine strikes at the root of fairness of the proceedings. 8.11 In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross-examination of the person whose statement is relied upon, the addition rests on suspicion and presumption rather than proof. 8.12 It is well settled that documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 ntirety. The assessee also specifically sought cross Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet maintained by the same person. It is well settled that while income-tax proceedings are not rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of effective opportunity to rebut or examine strikes at the root of fairness of the proceedings. In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the examination of the person whose statement is upon, the addition rests on suspicion and presumption rather It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural , where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the Bharat Solanki 30 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 ntirety. The assessee also specifically sought cross-examination of Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel tax proceedings are not rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of effective opportunity to rebut or examine strikes at the root of fairness of the proceedings. In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the examination of the person whose statement is upon, the addition rests on suspicion and presumption rather mere furnishing of copies of statements or documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural , where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the Printed from counselvise.com assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen drive contents were supplied through the show principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This approach conflates disclosure of material which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on with respect, misconceived and internally contradictory decision has been cited to suggest that cross necessary only where the third the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, Excel sheets and the pen evidentiary value dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari attribution of entries to specific buyers, and the linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the foundation of the addition. Much emphasis has been placed by the lower authorities on the proposition that income are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, equally settled that abrogation of natural justice admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen contents were supplied through the show-cause notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This disclosure of material with testing of material which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the rned Commissioner (Appeals) on Andaman Timber Industries misconceived and internally contradictory decision has been cited to suggest that cross- necessary only where the third-party statement is the “sole basis” o the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, Excel sheets and the pen-drive data have no independent evidentiary value dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The alleged cash component, the on of entries to specific buyers, and the linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the of the addition. Much emphasis has been placed by the lower authorities on the proposition that income-tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, equally settled that relaxation of evidentiary rules does not imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Bharat Solanki 31 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen- cause notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This testing of material, which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the Andaman Timber Industries is, misconceived and internally contradictory. The said -examination is party statement is the “sole basis” of the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, the drive data have no independent evidentiary value dehors the explanation and interpretation . The alleged cash component, the on of entries to specific buyers, and the linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the very of the addition. Much emphasis has been placed by the tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, it is relaxation of evidentiary rules does not imply . Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Printed from counselvise.com Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT that any 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 includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. 8.13 Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on offered the same to tax. This, however, the assessee’s liability cannot be used as conclusive evidence against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctn applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged payment is denied and no independent corroboration exists. 8.14 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the coordinate Bench decision in ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of without cross-examination on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on-money and offered the same to tax. This, however, ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held any 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 necess examination where facts are disputed. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of essee’s liability. It is trite law that an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive evidence against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctn applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged payment is denied and no independent corroboration exists. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain prim ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary reliance on third examination. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received money and offered the same to tax. This, however, Bharat Solanki 32 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an , which necessarily examination where facts are disputed. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on-money and cannot be determinative of an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive evidence against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness or applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged payment is denied and no independent corroboration exists. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish primarily on the ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to evidentiary reliance on third-party material iance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be Printed from counselvise.com determinative of the assessee’s liability rests squarely on two pillars: 1. absence of corroborative material against the assessee, and 2. denial of cross-examination despite specific request. 8.15 Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be followed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the case here. 8.16 The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with cross-examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends on the adjudication, and the prejudice caused  the assessee has payment;  no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the assessee;  the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, was never recovered; and ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of rests squarely on two pillars: e of corroborative material against the assessee, and examination despite specific request. Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical owed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends on the nature of evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present case: the assessee has categorically denied having made any cash no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, was never recovered; and Bharat Solanki 33 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 The ratio of Rajesh Jain e of corroborative material against the assessee, and examination despite specific request. Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical owed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the nature of evidence, its role in the . In the present case: having made any cash no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, Printed from counselvise.com  the entire edifice of the addition rests on third statements and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. 8.17 In such circumstances, denial of manifest prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. 8.18 We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged cash “on-money” payments for purchase of shops in Platinum Mall from the Ru of the Tribunal in Praveen Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted similar additions. learned also placed reliance upon another decision of the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Ak and Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. in this regard has been Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below: 10. I have con material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the entire edifice of the addition rests on third statements and electronic data interpreted by those very In such circumstances, denial of cross-examination causes manifest prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to money” payments for purchase of shops in from the Rubberwala Group, the Co- Praveen Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted similar additions. learned also placed reliance upon another decision of the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopra vs DCIT and Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. in this regard has been also placed on the decision in case of Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below: I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on– cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure Bharat Solanki 34 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the entire edifice of the addition rests on third-party statements and electronic data interpreted by those very examination causes manifest prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to money” payments for purchase of shops in -ordinate Bench Praveen Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of the Co- hraj Pukhraaj Chopra vs DCIT and Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being sidered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition –money in cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure Printed from counselvise.com operation conducted in case of Hir persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescen from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of o employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on–money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on on a perusal of the rema of which is at Page that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and i them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on– the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on– cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on– cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except eces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the ned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on–money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page–53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on –money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront Bharat Solanki 35 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 anandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ –money in do Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen ne of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on– money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, –money in cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except eces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the ned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences money. However, nd report dated 23th June 2017, a copy 53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all f, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on out complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an not only confront Printed from counselvise.com such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the s recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima– Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. 11. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure ope 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of searc third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on money in cash, no a the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other co establish that assessee has paid on can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any s ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the s recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, –facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic w. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on–money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on–money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement rded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on–money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on–money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material on record to Bharat Solanki 36 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross– examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic w. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search ration and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in h and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on– ddition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, rroborative evidence to money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement rded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer uch evidence / material on record to Printed from counselvise.com prove the payment of on the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on case involving similar nature of dispute co transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under:– …….. 8.19 The consistent factual matrix emerging from that the additions were made sole Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No incriminating material was from the inception, categorically denied having paid any cash over and above the documented consideration. 8.20 The Co-ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has held that such third records, uncorroborated by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross Imran Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied upon. ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 prove the payment of on–money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on–money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions that the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied having paid any cash over and above the documented consideration. ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has held that such third-party statements and electronic records, uncorroborated by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross Imran Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied Bharat Solanki 37 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a ncerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as above decisions is ly on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No found from the assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied having paid any cash over ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the ements and electronic records, uncorroborated by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition under that, despite specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied Printed from counselvise.com 8.21 It is well settled that not strictly apply to income nevertheless be founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and has a direct nexus with the assessee. Third cannot be treated as conc corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 8.22 Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable opportunity must be granted to rebut or contradict the same. Where the addition rests substantially on a third-party statement, denial of cross very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE that failure to grant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. 8.23 In the present case, it is undisputed that:  no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment was found from the assessee;  the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third party; ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not strictly apply to income-tax proceedings, additions must nevertheless be founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and has a direct nexus with the assessee. Third-party statements, cannot be treated as conclusive unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing es to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable opportunity must be granted to rebut or contradict the same. Where the addition rests substantially on a tatement, denial of cross-examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE(supra) has categorically held rant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. In the present case, it is undisputed that: no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment was found from the assessee; the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a Bharat Solanki 38 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 while the rigours of the Evidence Act do tax proceedings, additions must nevertheless be founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and party statements, lusive unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing es to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable opportunity must be granted to rebut or contradict the same. Where the addition rests substantially on a examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in has categorically held rant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a Printed from counselvise.com  the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the assessee; and  the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross permitted. 8.24 In the absence of any independent establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of the Act remains unmet. 8.25 During the hearing before us, the learned Depart Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently adopted by the Co identical matters arising from the same search ac discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, such co-ordinate decisions be respectfully followed. 8.26 On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has bee on the basis of uncorroborated third without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be susta ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the assessee; and the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of the Act remains unmet. During the hearing before us, the learned Depart Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently adopted by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters arising from the same search ac discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, ordinate decisions be respectfully followed. On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has bee on the basis of uncorroborated third-party material and statements, without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be sustained in law. Bharat Solanki 39 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 the statements relied upon do not specifically record any the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross-examination corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on-money”, the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition under During the hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely party material and statements, without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in violation of the principles of natural ined in law. Printed from counselvise.com 8.27 Accordingly, the addition of 69C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is deleted. 9. Since, we allowed the grounds raised on merit, therefore, the remaining grounds are rendered merely acad 10. Since the facts and circumstances in the remaining two years are also identical and therefore addition made in those appeal are also deleted and grounds raised are accordingly decided mutasis mutandis. 11. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court o Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/12/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Accordingly, the addition of ₹1,00,000/- made under section 69C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is 9. Since, we allowed the grounds raised on merit, therefore, the remaining grounds are rendered merely academic. Since the facts and circumstances in the remaining two years are also identical and therefore addition made in those appeal are also deleted and grounds raised are accordingly decided mutasis In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. ounced in the open Court on 23/12/2025. - Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Bharat Solanki 40 ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 made under section 69C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is 9. Since, we allowed the grounds raised on merit, therefore, the Since the facts and circumstances in the remaining two years are also identical and therefore addition made in those appeal are also deleted and grounds raised are accordingly decided mutasis In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. /12/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "