AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by Shri Biren Manna against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the addition of Rs. 81,00,000 to the appellant's income as unexplained expenditure under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on documents and statements from third parties, allegedly linking the appellant to unaccounted cash payments for a property purchase. The appellant contested that he was not provided an effective opportunity to counter these claims and that the documents did not conclusively prove his involvement in any cash transactions. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence and the procedural lapses, ruled in favor of the appellant.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823205 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-12-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2022-2023
Appeal Filed On
08-10-2025
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Biren Manna, 5/7, Vithoba Lane, 4th floor, Room No. 40, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. ITO Ward 23 Ward 23(1)(6), Pirmal Chamber, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AADPM 0809 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Paras B. Jain Revenue by : Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2022-23, raising following grounds: 1. Void Order 1.1. On facts, in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, (\"The CIT(A)\" Printed from counselvise.com erred in upholding the assessment order framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit (Faceless), (the 'A.O.), (collectively \"the authorities below\") dated 15 initio as the same has been framed without providing effective opportunity of be 1.2. The authorities below erred in considering only: a. the statements of third parties and/or b. entries found in the books of a third received from some Viren Manna (Assessee being Bi without providing your appellant the entries, statement and opportunity to counter the same. 1.3. The authorities below failed in not considering that the cash was allegedly received by different persons for a flat booked from a different entity entries in books were made subsequently collating the same from the sales records of the builder and in the process the appellant had no say nor any incriminating or corroborative evidence was found from the appellant. 2. Addition of Rs 81,00,000 2.1. The authorities below erred in assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.94,87,760 making addition/disallowance amounting in all to Rs.81,00,000 under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Ruparel Reality. 2.2. The authorities below did not provide copies of the statement or the said entries and opportunity to confront the same in the light of apparent and patent errors on the fact of the record su name of the person who paid the alleged money mentioned were wrong e.g. Viren Manna not Biren Manna, Dolat etc. without any corroborative evidence. 2.3. The authorities blow failed to appreciate that the alleged sums of rupees 81,00,000 as tabula after he had already acquired irreversible RERA protected rights by entering in to an agreement to purchase flat at a RERA Registered project on 31- Date ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 upholding the assessment order framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit (Faceless), (the 'A.O.), (collectively \"the authorities below\") dated 15-03-2024 is void ab initio as the same has been framed without providing effective opportunity of being heard and explain the case to the appellant. 1.2. The authorities below erred in considering only: a. the statements of third parties and/or b. entries found in the books of a third-party regarding cash received from some Viren Manna (Assessee being Biren Manna) without providing your appellant the entries, statement and opportunity to counter the same. 1.3. The authorities below failed in not considering that the cash was allegedly received by different persons for a flat booked from a different entity and cash handed over to yet a third person and the entries in books were made subsequently collating the same from the sales records of the builder and in the process the appellant had no say nor any incriminating or corroborative evidence was found the appellant. 2. Addition of Rs 81,00,000 2.1. The authorities below erred in assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.94,87,760 making addition/disallowance amounting in all to Rs.81,00,000 under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) allegedly paid in cash as on- money to M/s Ruparel Reality. 2.2. The authorities below did not provide copies of the statement or the said entries and opportunity to confront the same in the light of apparent and patent errors on the fact of the record su name of the person who paid the alleged money mentioned were wrong e.g. Viren Manna not Biren Manna, Dolat etc. without any corroborative evidence. 2.3. The authorities blow failed to appreciate that the alleged sums of rupees 81,00,000 as tabulated below were given by the appellant after he had already acquired irreversible RERA protected rights by entering in to an agreement to purchase flat at a RERA Registered -03-2021 Date Rupees Shri Biren Manna 2 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 upholding the assessment order framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit (Faceless), (the 'A.O.), 2024 is void ab initio as the same has been framed without providing effective ing heard and explain the case to the appellant. party regarding cash ren Manna) without providing your appellant the entries, statement and 1.3. The authorities below failed in not considering that the cash was allegedly received by different persons for a flat booked from a and cash handed over to yet a third person and the entries in books were made subsequently collating the same from the sales records of the builder and in the process the appellant had no say nor any incriminating or corroborative evidence was found 2.1. The authorities below erred in assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.94,87,760 making addition/disallowance amounting in all to Rs.81,00,000 under section 69B of the Income money to M/s 2.2. The authorities below did not provide copies of the statement or the said entries and opportunity to confront the same in the light of apparent and patent errors on the fact of the record such as the name of the person who paid the alleged money mentioned were wrong e.g. Viren Manna not Biren Manna, Dolat etc. without any 2.3. The authorities blow failed to appreciate that the alleged sums ted below were given by the appellant after he had already acquired irreversible RERA protected rights by entering in to an agreement to purchase flat at a RERA Registered Printed from counselvise.com 21 03 05 10 Total 2.4. The authorities below erred in not distinguishing between amount PAID and amount payable as per the agreement, still outstanding till date, as the said flat is still under construction. 3. Assessment U/s 115BBE of the Act The Authorities below erred in assessing the amount of Rs 81,00,000 as other income under section 115BBE of the Act ignoring that the appellant has no source of income other than the business income since the beginning till 4. The appellant prays that the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of one another. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.12.2022 declaring a total income o ₹13,87,760/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny Income-tax Act , 1961 ( in short the Act) with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15/03/2024, addition for cash money of Rs. 81,00,000/ purchase of flat was held as unexplained expenditure in terms of section 69 of the Act. On further appeal, the ld CIT(A), upheld the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced as above. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 21-04-2021 25,00,000 03-05-2021 25,00,000 05-05-2021 3,00,000 10-05-2021 28,00,000 Total 81,00,000 2.4. The authorities below erred in not distinguishing between amount PAID and amount payable as per the agreement, still outstanding till date, as the said flat is still under construction. Assessment U/s 115BBE of the Act The Authorities below erred in assessing the amount of Rs 81,00,000 as other income under section 115BBE of the Act ignoring that the appellant has no source of income other than the business income since the beginning till date. 4. The appellant prays that the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of one another. Briefly stated, the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.12.2022 declaring a total income o The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the tax Act , 1961 ( in short the Act) were issued and complied In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15/03/2024, addition for cash money of Rs. 81,00,000/ purchase of flat was held as unexplained expenditure in terms of section 69 of the Act. On further appeal, the ld CIT(A), upheld the on. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced as above. Shri Biren Manna 3 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 2.4. The authorities below erred in not distinguishing between amount PAID and amount payable as per the agreement, still outstanding till date, as the said flat is still under construction. The Authorities below erred in assessing the amount of Rs 81,00,000 as other income under section 115BBE of the Act ignoring that the appellant has no source of income other than the 4. The appellant prays that the aforesaid grounds of appeal are Briefly stated, the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.12.2022 declaring a total income of The return of income filed by the assessee was and statutory notices under the were issued and complied In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15/03/2024, addition for cash money of Rs. 81,00,000/- paid for purchase of flat was held as unexplained expenditure in terms of section 69 of the Act. On further appeal, the ld CIT(A), upheld the on. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Printed from counselvise.com 3. In all the grounds the sole issue is of addition of Rs. 81,0 as unexplained expenditure, therefore all the grounds are taken together for adjudication. 4. Facts qua the issue in dispute are that scrutiny, the Assessing Officer referred to information received through the Insight Portal indicating that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income had been conducted on 25.11.2021 in the case of the Realty Group and its related entities. The group was engaged in real estate development in the Mumbai and Navi Mumbai Metropolitan Regions. In the information it was mentioned that of the search, various loose papers, diaries, excel sheets, WhatsApp chats and other documents were found and seized, suggesting receipt of unaccounted cash (“on Statements of persons controlling the affairs also recorded, wherein receipt of cash components was admitted as a general practice. 4.1 From the seized material, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased Flat No. 4304 in the project and, according to the notings found during the search, an aggregate cash payment of ₹81,00,000/ connection with the said flat. was duly admitted by the persons controlling the affairs Ruparel Reality group. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 In all the grounds the sole issue is of addition of Rs. 81,0 as unexplained expenditure, therefore all the grounds are taken ication. Facts qua the issue in dispute are that during the course of scrutiny, the Assessing Officer referred to information received through the Insight Portal indicating that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 196 had been conducted on 25.11.2021 in the case of the and its related entities. The group was engaged in real estate development in the Mumbai and Navi Mumbai Metropolitan In the information it was mentioned that during the course of the search, various loose papers, diaries, excel sheets, WhatsApp chats and other documents were found and seized, suggesting receipt of unaccounted cash (“on-money”) against sale of flats. Statements of persons controlling the affairs of the said group were also recorded, wherein receipt of cash components was admitted as From the seized material, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased Flat No. 4304 in the project and, according to the notings found during the search, an aggregate 81,00,000/- was alleged to have been made in connection with the said flat. The fact of receipt of cash component admitted by the persons controlling the affairs group. Shri Biren Manna 4 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 In all the grounds the sole issue is of addition of Rs. 81,00,00 as unexplained expenditure, therefore all the grounds are taken uring the course of scrutiny, the Assessing Officer referred to information received through the Insight Portal indicating that a search and seizure tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) had been conducted on 25.11.2021 in the case of the Ruparel and its related entities. The group was engaged in real estate development in the Mumbai and Navi Mumbai Metropolitan uring the course of the search, various loose papers, diaries, excel sheets, WhatsApp chats and other documents were found and seized, suggesting money”) against sale of flats. of the said group were also recorded, wherein receipt of cash components was admitted as From the seized material, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased Flat No. 4304 in the project Ruparel Jewel and, according to the notings found during the search, an aggregate was alleged to have been made in fact of receipt of cash component admitted by the persons controlling the affairs of the Printed from counselvise.com 4.2 The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the alleged cash payment of ₹81,00,000/ the premises of the Rupar categorically denied having made any cash payment to the developer. It was submitted that the total investment in the flat was ₹2,66,37,408/-, jointly made with his spouse, and that the entire consideration was pa income. 4.3 The assessee further contended that no seized document or statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer was ever furnished to him, nor was any opportunity of cross was also pointed out that the agreement for sale was executed on 31.03.2021 for a consideration of executed and enforceable agreement existed, there was no occasion or necessity for any subsequent cash payment. It was emphasized that the proposed addition was based solely on loose papers fou during the search of a third party and on mere presumptions, without any corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Tribunal to submit that no addition could be sustained in t absence of incriminating material found from the assessee or evidence directly implicating him. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the alleged cash 81,00,000/- reflected in the seized material found at the premises of the Ruparel Realty Group. In response, the assessee categorically denied having made any cash payment to the developer. It was submitted that the total investment in the flat was , jointly made with his spouse, and that the entire consideration was paid through accounted sources from business The assessee further contended that no seized document or statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer was ever furnished to him, nor was any opportunity of cross-examination provided. It was also pointed out that the agreement for sale was executed on 1.03.2021 for a consideration of ₹2.63 crores and, once a duly executed and enforceable agreement existed, there was no occasion or necessity for any subsequent cash payment. It was emphasized that the proposed addition was based solely on loose papers fou during the search of a third party and on mere presumptions, without any corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Tribunal to submit that no addition could be sustained in t absence of incriminating material found from the assessee or evidence directly implicating him. But the Ld. Assessing Officer Shri Biren Manna 5 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the alleged cash reflected in the seized material found at In response, the assessee categorically denied having made any cash payment to the developer. It was submitted that the total investment in the flat was , jointly made with his spouse, and that the entire id through accounted sources from business The assessee further contended that no seized document or statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer was ever furnished examination provided. It was also pointed out that the agreement for sale was executed on 2.63 crores and, once a duly executed and enforceable agreement existed, there was no occasion or necessity for any subsequent cash payment. It was emphasized that the proposed addition was based solely on loose papers found during the search of a third party and on mere presumptions, without any corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Tribunal to submit that no addition could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found from the assessee or But the Ld. Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition of Rs.81,00,000/-. 4.4 On appeal, the assessee grounds. First, it was submitted that the loose papers seized during the search and the statements of Shri Hitesh Lalchandani and Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer referred to cash receipts of the names of “Viren Manna” and “Shri Dolai” of the assessee. Nowhere in the seized material was it stated that the assessee had paid cash of that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on assumptions unsupported by the seized record. 4.5 Secondly, it was argued that neither the seized documents nor the statements recorded during the search specifically implicated the assessee in any payment of on never confronted to the assessee, nor was any opportunity of cross examination afforded, even several years after the search. It was submitted that an addition based purely on untested third statements and without following principles of natural justice was unsustainable in law. 4.6 Thirdly, it was emphasized that conducted at the assessee’s premises and that documents seized from a third party could not, by themselves, be used against the assessee without independent corroboration. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition of On appeal, the assessee assailed the addition First, it was submitted that the loose papers seized during the search and the statements of Shri Hitesh Lalchandani and Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer referred to cash receipts of ₹ the names of “Viren Manna” and “Shri Dolai”, and not in the name of the assessee. Nowhere in the seized material was it stated that the assessee had paid cash of ₹81,00,000/-. It was thus contended that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on assumptions unsupported by the seized record. Secondly, it was argued that neither the seized documents nor the statements recorded during the search specifically implicated the assessee in any payment of on-money. The statements were never confronted to the assessee, nor was any opportunity of cross examination afforded, even several years after the search. It was submitted that an addition based purely on untested third statements and without following principles of natural justice was unsustainable in law. Thirdly, it was emphasized that no search or survey was conducted at the assessee’s premises and that documents seized from a third party could not, by themselves, be used against the assessee without independent corroboration. Shri Biren Manna 6 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition of assailed the addition on multiple First, it was submitted that the loose papers seized during the search and the statements of Shri Hitesh Lalchandani and Shri ₹61,00,000/- in , and not in the name of the assessee. Nowhere in the seized material was it stated that . It was thus contended that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on assumptions Secondly, it was argued that neither the seized documents nor the statements recorded during the search specifically implicated money. The statements were never confronted to the assessee, nor was any opportunity of cross- examination afforded, even several years after the search. It was submitted that an addition based purely on untested third-party statements and without following principles of natural justice was no search or survey was conducted at the assessee’s premises and that documents seized from a third party could not, by themselves, be used against the Printed from counselvise.com 4.7 The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Coor Bench in Naren Premchand Nagda v. ITO 3265/Mum/2015), wherein it was held that no addition could be made solely on the basis of documents found from third premises and statements recorded therein, in the absence of corroborative evidence against the assessee. this case the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee from the builder has not been denied by the assessee. Further, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized noting. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of noting in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed. Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO wherein it was held that mere third without any supporting evidence such as handwriting, signatures, or other incriminating material belonging to the assessee, could not justify an addition on account of alleged on specifically pointed out that none of the seized documents bore the handwriting or signature of the assessee. 4.8 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions and upheld the addition. The principal reasoning was that the seized documents referred to Flat No. 4304 at Ruparel Jewel and mentioned the name “Viren Manna”, which, according to the Ld. CIT(A), was a mere clerical error for “Biren Manna”, as other details matched the assessee’s transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Coor Naren Premchand Nagda v. ITO 3265/Mum/2015), wherein it was held that no addition could be made solely on the basis of documents found from third premises and statements recorded therein, in the absence of nce against the assessee. It may be noted that in this case the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee from the builder has not been denied by the assessee. Further, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized noting. Inspite of the addition made on the basis of noting in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed. Reliance was also placed on Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)], wherein it was held that mere third-party notings or statements, porting evidence such as handwriting, signatures, or other incriminating material belonging to the assessee, could not justify an addition on account of alleged on-money. It was specifically pointed out that none of the seized documents bore the g or signature of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions and upheld the addition. The principal reasoning was that the seized documents referred to Flat No. 4304 at Ruparel Jewel and mentioned the name “Viren Manna”, which, according to the Ld. e clerical error for “Biren Manna”, as other details matched the assessee’s transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied Shri Biren Manna 7 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Naren Premchand Nagda v. ITO (ITA No. 3265/Mum/2015), wherein it was held that no addition could be made solely on the basis of documents found from third-party premises and statements recorded therein, in the absence of It may be noted that in this case the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee from the builder has not been denied by the assessee. Further, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized noting. Inspite of the addition made on the basis of noting in respect of cash Reliance was also placed on [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)], party notings or statements, porting evidence such as handwriting, signatures, or other incriminating material belonging to the assessee, could not money. It was specifically pointed out that none of the seized documents bore the The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions and upheld the addition. The principal reasoning was that the seized documents referred to Flat No. 4304 at Ruparel Jewel and mentioned the name “Viren Manna”, which, according to the Ld. e clerical error for “Biren Manna”, as other details matched the assessee’s transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied Printed from counselvise.com upon the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer recorded under section 132(4), wherein it was stated that cash collected was handed over to Shri Milind Ruparel. On this basis, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had paid on and confirmed the addition. reproduced as under: “6.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, th furnished the written submission and the same is perused by the undersigned. The appellant has argued that the appellant has not made any cash payment and further the AO could not make any addition on the basis of information received from in 3 rd party premises. From the perusal of seized documents, it is confirmed that the appellant has purchased the flat no. 4304 at Ruparel Jewel from Ruparel Realty Group. The appellant has claimed that in the seized documents against the Shri Viren Manna name is there whereas the appellant's name is Shri Biren Manna, therefore, the cash payment is not related to the appellant. The appellant has not denied the fact that the flat was purchased from the builder Ruparel Realty Gro 4304 at Ruparel Jewel. The flat no. and other details are matching with the appellant's transaction and only the first letter is changed as V instead of B and the mistake could have happened on account of clerical spelling mistake. T acceptable. These facts are confirmed by one of the key person Shri Ramchandran S Iyer in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and he has stated that the collected cash amount was handed over to Shri Milind R discussions, the AO has established through the seized documents that the appellant has paid the on purchasing the flat, therefore, the undersigned does not find any reason to interfere with the addition made in the assessment order. The appellant has raised the objection on the addition of Rs.81,00,000/ to 6 are decided against the appellant. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 117. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 upon the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer recorded under section 132(4), wherein it was stated that cash collected was o Shri Milind Ruparel. On this basis, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had paid on-money of and confirmed the addition.The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 6.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished the written submission and the same is perused by the undersigned. The appellant has argued that the appellant has not made any cash payment and further the AO could not make any addition on the basis of information received from evidences found in 3 rd party premises. From the perusal of seized documents, it is confirmed that the appellant has purchased the flat no. 4304 at Ruparel Jewel from Ruparel Realty Group. The appellant has claimed that in the seized documents against the cash payment Shri Viren Manna name is there whereas the appellant's name is Shri Biren Manna, therefore, the cash payment is not related to the appellant. The appellant has not denied the fact that the flat was purchased from the builder Ruparel Realty Group and the flat no. is 4304 at Ruparel Jewel. The flat no. and other details are matching with the appellant's transaction and only the first letter is changed as V instead of B and the mistake could have happened on account of clerical spelling mistake. Therefore, the appellant argument is not acceptable. These facts are confirmed by one of the key person Shri Ramchandran S Iyer in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and he has stated that the collected cash amount was handed over to Shri Milind Ruparel. In view of the above-mentioned facts and discussions, the AO has established through the seized documents that the appellant has paid the on-money of Rs.81,00,000/ purchasing the flat, therefore, the undersigned does not find any erfere with the addition made in the assessment order. The appellant has raised the objection on the addition of Rs.81,00,000/- through ground nos. 3 to 6, therefore, ground nos. 3 to 6 are decided against the appellant.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 117. Shri Biren Manna 8 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 upon the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer recorded under section 132(4), wherein it was stated that cash collected was o Shri Milind Ruparel. On this basis, the Ld. CIT(A) money of ₹81,00,000/- The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is e appellant has furnished the written submission and the same is perused by the undersigned. The appellant has argued that the appellant has not made any cash payment and further the AO could not make any evidences found in 3 rd party premises. From the perusal of seized documents, it is confirmed that the appellant has purchased the flat no. 4304 at Ruparel Jewel from Ruparel Realty Group. The appellant has cash payment Shri Viren Manna name is there whereas the appellant's name is Shri Biren Manna, therefore, the cash payment is not related to the appellant. The appellant has not denied the fact that the flat was up and the flat no. is 4304 at Ruparel Jewel. The flat no. and other details are matching with the appellant's transaction and only the first letter is changed as V instead of B and the mistake could have happened on account herefore, the appellant argument is not acceptable. These facts are confirmed by one of the key person Shri Ramchandran S Iyer in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and he has stated that the collected cash amount was handed over mentioned facts and discussions, the AO has established through the seized documents money of Rs.81,00,000/- for purchasing the flat, therefore, the undersigned does not find any erfere with the addition made in the assessment order. The appellant has raised the objection on the addition of through ground nos. 3 to 6, therefore, ground nos. 3 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book Printed from counselvise.com 5.1 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 5.2 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee purchased Flat No 4304 in the project ₹2.63 crores, along with applicable taxes, in the duly executed agreement for sale dated 31.03.2021. The entire disclosed consideration stands recorded in the agreement. The addition in dispute arises solely from certain loose papers and notings found during the course of search conducted at the premises of the developer, Ruparel Realty Group payment of ₹81,00,000/ the said flat. 5.3 The loose papers found from the Ruparel Reality group has beeb explained by key eomployees of the group. the copy of the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer dated 27.11.2021 wherein he has provided detail of cash the flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel 99, is reproduced as under: 93 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee purchased Flat No 4304 in the project Ruparel Jewel and disclosed consideration of 2.63 crores, along with applicable taxes, in the duly executed agreement for sale dated 31.03.2021. The entire disclosed consideration stands recorded in the agreement. The addition in pute arises solely from certain loose papers and notings found during the course of search conducted at the premises of the Ruparel Realty Group, wherein an aggregate cash 81,00,000/- is alleged to have been made in respect of The loose papers found from the Ruparel Reality group has beeb explained by key eomployees of the group. The relevant para of the copy of the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer dated 27.11.2021 wherein he has provided detail of cash received against flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel , available on Paper Book page is reproduced as under: This page contains my To Do List for the day 21.04.2021. Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the f (i) Rs. 25,00,000 received from Shri Viren Manna buyer of Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel project at Sewre. I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) Shri Biren Manna 9 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and It is an undisputed fact that the assessee purchased Flat No. and disclosed consideration of 2.63 crores, along with applicable taxes, in the duly executed agreement for sale dated 31.03.2021. The entire disclosed consideration stands recorded in the agreement. The addition in pute arises solely from certain loose papers and notings found during the course of search conducted at the premises of the , wherein an aggregate cash is alleged to have been made in respect of The loose papers found from the Ruparel Reality group has The relevant para of the copy of the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer dated received against available on Paper Book page To Do List for the day Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. Shri Viren Manna, buyer of Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel project at I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) Printed from counselvise.com 103 105 106 111 5.4 On examination of the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, it is evid refer to receipt of ₹5,00,000/- and ₹3,00,000/ with Flat No. 4304. The Revenue has failed to explain who “Shri ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 This page contains my To Do List for the day 03.05.2021. Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. (i) Rs. 5,00,000 received from Shri Dolai Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel project at Sewre. I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) This page contains my To Do List for the day 05.05.2021. Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. (i) Rs. 3,00,000 received from Shri Dolai Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel project at Sewre. I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) This page contains my To Do List for the day 06.05.2021. Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. (i) Rs. 5,00,000 received from Shri Naresh Sharma, buyer of Flat No. 4504 of Ruparel Ariana project at Sewre. I had personally handed over said cash to Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) This page contains my To Do List for the day 12.05.2021. Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. (i) Rs. 3,00,000 received from Shri Naresh Sharma, buyer of Flat No. 4504 of Ruparel Ariana project at Sewre. I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel On examination of the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that the notings refer to receipt of ₹25,00,000/- from “Shri Viren Manna” and 3,00,000/- from one “Shri Dolai” in connection with Flat No. 4304. The Revenue has failed to explain who “Shri Shri Biren Manna 10 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 Do List for the day Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. Shri Dolai, buyer of Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel project at Sewre. anded over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) To Do List for the day Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. Shri Dolai, buyer of Flat No. 4304 of Ruparel Jewel project at Sewre. I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) To Do List for the day Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. Shri Naresh , buyer of Flat No. 4504 of Ruparel Ariana I had personally handed over said cash to Shri Milind Ruparel (noted by me as TMR in my entries) To Do List for the day Apart from that the page also contains my noting regarding cash collected from the following parties. Shri Naresh , buyer of Flat No. 4504 of Ruparel Ariana I had personally handed over said cash to Shri On examination of the statement of Shri Ramchandran S. Iyer, ent that the notings from “Shri Viren Manna” and from one “Shri Dolai” in connection with Flat No. 4304. The Revenue has failed to explain who “Shri Printed from counselvise.com Dolai” is, or on what basis amounts allegedly received from such person could be attributed to the assessee, when the flat admittedly stands in the assessee’s name. The presence of multiple names against the same flat number, without any enquiry or clarifi by the Investigation Wing or the Assessing Officer, seriously undermines the reliability of the seized notings themselves. the course of assessment proceedings of the Investigation Wing no opportunity to cross- the key persons of the Ruparel Reality was provided to the assessee. 5.5 We also note that no receipt, confirmation, or document evidencing payment of cash by the assessee has been brought on record. None of the seized papers bear the handwr of the assessee, nor do they conclusively establish that the assessee was the person who allegedly made the cash payments. The addition has thus been founded entirely on third 5.6 In our opinion it is the admitted positio relied upon were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross afforded. It is trite law that any material collected behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against him un with such material and given a fair opportunity to rebut the same. Failure to provide cross and vitiates the addition. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 Dolai” is, or on what basis amounts allegedly received from such person could be attributed to the assessee, when the flat admittedly stands in the assessee’s name. The presence of multiple names against the same flat number, without any enquiry or clarifi by the Investigation Wing or the Assessing Officer, seriously undermines the reliability of the seized notings themselves. the course of assessment proceedings of the Investigation Wing no -examine the veracity of the stat the key persons of the Ruparel Reality was provided to the assessee. We also note that no receipt, confirmation, or document evidencing payment of cash by the assessee has been brought on record. None of the seized papers bear the handwriting or signature of the assessee, nor do they conclusively establish that the assessee was the person who allegedly made the cash payments. The addition has thus been founded entirely on third-party material. In our opinion it is the admitted position that the statements relied upon were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination of the concerned persons was afforded. It is trite law that any material collected behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against him unless he is confronted with such material and given a fair opportunity to rebut the same. Failure to provide cross-examination goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the addition. Shri Biren Manna 11 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 Dolai” is, or on what basis amounts allegedly received from such person could be attributed to the assessee, when the flat admittedly stands in the assessee’s name. The presence of multiple names against the same flat number, without any enquiry or clarification by the Investigation Wing or the Assessing Officer, seriously undermines the reliability of the seized notings themselves. During the course of assessment proceedings of the Investigation Wing no examine the veracity of the statement made by the key persons of the Ruparel Reality was provided to the assessee. We also note that no receipt, confirmation, or document evidencing payment of cash by the assessee has been brought on iting or signature of the assessee, nor do they conclusively establish that the assessee was the person who allegedly made the cash payments. The party material. n that the statements relied upon were never confronted to the assessee and no examination of the concerned persons was afforded. It is trite law that any material collected behind the back less he is confronted with such material and given a fair opportunity to rebut the same. examination goes to the root of the matter Printed from counselvise.com 5.7 We find that Co circumstances in case of M/s Rucha Consultancy LLP in ITA No. 4996/Mum/2024 and 5706/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2021 22 has deleted observing as under: “11.4. We notice that the impugned addition has been made on the basis of a third party statement, assessee. It is also stated that the said statement has been retracted by the third party. No other corroborative material has been brought on record by the AO to support his case that the assessee has, indeed, received the amo noticed that the assessee had requested the AO to supply to it the copy of statements recorded from Shri Prabhkar Dalvi, since the impugned addition has been made by the AO on the basis of that statement only. However, the AO statement to the assessee. It is well established proposition of law that the AO could not have made addition on the basis of material collected behind the back of the assessee, unless those materials were confronted with the as assessee had specifically requested the AO examination of Shri Prabhakar Dalvi and the AO did not provide such an opportunity. Hence, the AO could not have made any addition on the basis of third party s corroborated, and not confronted with the assessee. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has relied upon various case laws in support of the decision reached by him. Before us, no contrary decision was placed reliance by the revenue. We notic assessing officer has made the addition u/s 69A of the Act, but the assessee was not found to be the owner of any cash. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17.00 crores made u 12. The ground no.5 urged by the revenue relates to the addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs made on the basis of statement given by Shri Shailendra Rathi. 12.1. During the course of search operations, the revenue searched the premises o was examined and data back up was taken. In the statement, Shri Shailendra Rathi had accepted that he has received Rs.80.00 lakhs through Angadiayas in Mumbai. Though the assessee disowned this transaction amount was received by Shri Shailendra Rathi in the capacity of ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 We find that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in identical case of M/s Rucha Consultancy LLP in ITA No. 4996/Mum/2024 and 5706/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2021 has deleted observing as under: 11.4. We notice that the impugned addition has been made on the basis of a third party statement, which has been denied by the assessee. It is also stated that the said statement has been retracted by the third party. No other corroborative material has been brought on record by the AO to support his case that the assessee has, indeed, received the amount of Rs. 17.00 crores. It is noticed that the assessee had requested the AO to supply to it the copy of statements recorded from Shri Prabhkar Dalvi, since the impugned addition has been made by the AO on the basis of that statement only. However, the AO did not supply the copy of statement to the assessee. It is well established proposition of law that the AO could not have made addition on the basis of material collected behind the back of the assessee, unless those materials were confronted with the assessee. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had specifically requested the AO to allow cross examination of Shri Prabhakar Dalvi and the AO did not provide such an opportunity. Hence, the AO could not have made any addition on the basis of third party statement which is not corroborated, and not confronted with the assessee. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has relied upon various case laws in support of the decision reached by him. Before us, no contrary decision was placed reliance by the revenue. We noticed earlier that the assessing officer has made the addition u/s 69A of the Act, but the assessee was not found to be the owner of any cash. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17.00 crores made u/s 69A as unexplained money. 12. The ground no.5 urged by the revenue relates to the addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs made on the basis of statement given by Shri Shailendra Rathi. 12.1. During the course of search operations, the revenue searched the premises of Shri Shailendra Rathi in Pune. His whatsapp chat was examined and data back up was taken. In the statement, Shri Shailendra Rathi had accepted that he has received Rs.80.00 lakhs through Angadiayas in Mumbai. Though the assessee disowned this transaction, yet the AO took the view that the above said amount was received by Shri Shailendra Rathi in the capacity of Shri Biren Manna 12 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in identical case of M/s Rucha Consultancy LLP in ITA No. 4996/Mum/2024 and 5706/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2021- 11.4. We notice that the impugned addition has been made on the which has been denied by the assessee. It is also stated that the said statement has been retracted by the third party. No other corroborative material has been brought on record by the AO to support his case that the unt of Rs. 17.00 crores. It is noticed that the assessee had requested the AO to supply to it the copy of statements recorded from Shri Prabhkar Dalvi, since the impugned addition has been made by the AO on the basis of that did not supply the copy of statement to the assessee. It is well established proposition of law that the AO could not have made addition on the basis of material collected behind the back of the assessee, unless those materials sessee. The Ld A.R submitted that the to allow cross examination of Shri Prabhakar Dalvi and the AO did not provide such an opportunity. Hence, the AO could not have made any tatement which is not corroborated, and not confronted with the assessee. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has relied upon various case laws in support of the decision reached by him. Before us, no contrary decision was ed earlier that the assessing officer has made the addition u/s 69A of the Act, but the assessee was not found to be the owner of any cash. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the /s 69A as unexplained money. 12. The ground no.5 urged by the revenue relates to the addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs made on the basis of statement given by Shri 12.1. During the course of search operations, the revenue searched f Shri Shailendra Rathi in Pune. His whatsapp chat was examined and data back up was taken. In the statement, Shri Shailendra Rathi had accepted that he has received Rs.80.00 lakhs through Angadiayas in Mumbai. Though the assessee disowned , yet the AO took the view that the above said amount was received by Shri Shailendra Rathi in the capacity of Printed from counselvise.com consultant to the Rucha Group. Accordingly, the AO assessed the above said amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The revenue is contesting the said decision. 12.2. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that the AO has made this addition on the basis of whatsapp chat and also on the basis of stat Shailendra Rathi. The Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the presumption of the assessing officer that Shri Shailendra Rathi is the consultant (employee) of the assessee is not correct. He has stated that Shri Shailendra Rathi is an independent employee. Hence the basis foundation on which the addition has been made by the AO fails here. Further, the Ld CIT(A) has stated that the whatsapp chat did not contain any reference to the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) has also stated that Rathi also did not refer to the name of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that the whatsapp chat did not have any bearing in the hands of the assessee and hence no addition could be made. Thus, we notice that the AO has made the impug a third party statement without bringing any corroborative material to support of his view that the impugned amount of Rs.80 lakhs was received on behalf of the assessee. In support of the above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has refe following case laws: (a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161 taxmann.com 813)(SC); (b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Gij); (c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72 taxmann.com 355)(Guj); (d) Naren Premchand Nagda (e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020) (118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi); (f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ 36)(Ahd); (g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533) (Ahd Trib); (h) ACIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain Trib); (i) Pramod Pandey vs. ACIT (ITA No.4295 (Delhi) of 2012); (i) ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 consultant to the Rucha Group. Accordingly, the AO assessed the above said amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition and hence the revenue is contesting the said decision. 12.2. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that the AO has made this addition on the basis of whatsapp chat and also on the basis of statement given by Shri Shailendra Rathi. The Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the presumption of the assessing officer that Shri Shailendra Rathi is the consultant (employee) of the assessee is not correct. He has stated that Shri Shailendra Rathi is an independent consultant and not an employee. Hence the basis foundation on which the addition has been made by the AO fails here. Further, the Ld CIT(A) has stated that the whatsapp chat did not contain any reference to the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) has also stated that the Shri Shailendra Rathi also did not refer to the name of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that the whatsapp chat did not have any bearing in the hands of the assessee and hence no addition could be made. Thus, we notice that the AO has made the impugned addition on the basis of a third party statement without bringing any corroborative material to support of his view that the impugned amount of Rs.80 lakhs was received on behalf of the assessee. In support of the above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has refe following case laws:- (a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161 taxmann.com (b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Gij); (c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72 taxmann.com (d) Naren Premchand Nagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of 2015.); (e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020) (118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi); Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ (g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533) (Ahd Trib); (h) ACIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (2023) (147 taxmann.com 124)(Mum Pramod Pandey vs. ACIT (ITA No.4295 (Delhi) of 2012); (i) Shri Biren Manna 13 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 consultant to the Rucha Group. Accordingly, the AO assessed the above said amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as unexplained money u/s Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition and hence the 12.2. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that the AO has made this addition on the basis of ement given by Shri Shailendra Rathi. The Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the presumption of the assessing officer that Shri Shailendra Rathi is the consultant (employee) of the assessee is not correct. He has stated that Shri consultant and not an employee. Hence the basis foundation on which the addition has been made by the AO fails here. Further, the Ld CIT(A) has stated that the whatsapp chat did not contain any reference to the the Shri Shailendra Rathi also did not refer to the name of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that the whatsapp chat did not have any bearing in the hands of the assessee and hence no addition could be made. Thus, we ned addition on the basis of a third party statement without bringing any corroborative material to support of his view that the impugned amount of Rs.80 lakhs In support of the above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has referred to (a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161 taxmann.com (b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Gij); (c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72 taxmann.com vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of 2015.); (e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020) (118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi); Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ (g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533) (Ahd Trib); (2023) (147 taxmann.com 124)(Mum Pramod Pandey vs. ACIT (ITA No.4295 (Delhi) of 2012); (i) Printed from counselvise.com (j) Atul Tantia vs.DCIT (ITA No.492/Kol/2021 dated 28 12.3 From the facts discussed above, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has deleted this additi earlier paragraphs, while adjudicating the issue No.1 urged by the assessee, we have held that the provisions of sec.69A could be invoked only if money is physically found in the hands of the assessee, which is the AO had also made the addition in the hands of Shri Prashant Prakash Nilawar on the basis of whatsapp chat found in the phone of Shri Shailendra Rathi. The said addition has been deleted by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 12 Shri Prashant Prakash Nilawar in ITA No.5689 & 5073/Mum/2024. The Tribunal held as under: \".....the assessee cannot be saddled with the responsibility to explain the image/sheet found from the mobile more particularly in the present situation where the owner of the said document Shri Shailendra Rathi himself could not clearly explain the contents therein as is evident from his statement recorded.\" 12.4. Accordingly, we are of the vi justified in deleting the addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs. 5.8 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kundal Raghubir Bhandari in ITA No. 3646/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2017-18 also in identical circumstances making a on-money received in cash without providing opportunity of cross examination has been deleted. The relevant finding of the Co ordinate Bench is reproduced as under: “18. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe builder Shri Kulin S Vora and in that case the builder has accepted that they have received on conducted by them and he has disclosed the name of all the flat owners. The Ta on the above declaration of receipt of on Flat Owners. Assessee being one of the flat purchaser, the assessment was reopened. However, no cross examination opportunity was given t ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 (j) Atul Tantia vs.DCIT (ITA No.492/Kol/2021 dated 28 From the facts discussed above, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has deleted this addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs for justifiable reasons. earlier paragraphs, while adjudicating the issue No.1 urged by the assessee, we have held that the provisions of sec.69A could be invoked only if money is physically found in the hands of the assessee, which is not the case. The Ld A.R further submitted that the AO had also made the addition in the hands of Shri Prashant Prakash Nilawar on the basis of whatsapp chat found in the phone of Shri Shailendra Rathi. The said addition has been deleted by the vide its order dated 12-02-2025 passed in the hands of Shri Prashant Prakash Nilawar in ITA No.5689 & 5073/Mum/2024. The Tribunal held as under:- \".....the assessee cannot be saddled with the responsibility to explain the image/sheet found from the mobile of a third person, more particularly in the present situation where the owner of the said document Shri Shailendra Rathi himself could not clearly explain the contents therein as is evident from his statement 12.4. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.80.00 lakhs.” ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kundal Raghubir Bhandari in ITA No. 3646/Mum/2023 for assessment 18 also in identical circumstances making a money received in cash without providing opportunity of cross examination has been deleted. The relevant finding of the Co ordinate Bench is reproduced as under: 18. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that there was a search action in the case of the builder Shri Kulin S Vora and in that case the builder has accepted that they have received on-money from the various projects conducted by them and he has disclosed the name of all the flat owners. The Tax Authorities proceeded to make the addition based on the above declaration of receipt of on-money in the hands of the Flat Owners. Assessee being one of the flat purchaser, the assessment was reopened. However, no cross examination opportunity was given to the assessee. In this case, no such Shri Biren Manna 14 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 (j) Atul Tantia vs.DCIT (ITA No.492/Kol/2021 dated 28-03-2023); From the facts discussed above, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) on of Rs.80.00 lakhs for justifiable reasons. earlier paragraphs, while adjudicating the issue No.1 urged by the assessee, we have held that the provisions of sec.69A could be invoked only if money is physically found in the hands of the not the case. The Ld A.R further submitted that the AO had also made the addition in the hands of Shri Prashant Prakash Nilawar on the basis of whatsapp chat found in the phone of Shri Shailendra Rathi. The said addition has been deleted by the 2025 passed in the hands of Shri Prashant Prakash Nilawar in ITA No.5689 & 5073/Mum/2024. \".....the assessee cannot be saddled with the responsibility to of a third person, more particularly in the present situation where the owner of the said document Shri Shailendra Rathi himself could not clearly explain the contents therein as is evident from his statement ew that the Ld CIT(A) was ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kundal Raghubir Bhandari in ITA No. 3646/Mum/2023 for assessment 18 also in identical circumstances making addition for money received in cash without providing opportunity of cross- examination has been deleted. The relevant finding of the Co- 18. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on that there was a search action in the case of the builder Shri Kulin S Vora and in that case the builder has accepted money from the various projects conducted by them and he has disclosed the name of all the flat x Authorities proceeded to make the addition based money in the hands of the Flat Owners. Assessee being one of the flat purchaser, the assessment was reopened. However, no cross examination In this case, no such Printed from counselvise.com opportunity was granted to the assessee and only the statement recorded were supplied to the assessee and in fact, it was asked the assessee to bring the builder before the Assessing Officer. After careful consideratio in a position to bring any builder before the tax authorities, it is the duty of the tax authorities if they want to rely on statement to arrange for the cross examination and opportunity to be extended to the assessee. Apart from the above statement of the builder and whatever they have declared in their assessment was with the authorities, this information was never available with the Assessing Officer in this case, hence, there is no evidences available in hands of the Tax Authorities against the assessee except the statement of the builder. The additions proposed by the Assessing Officer merely relying on the statement of the builder. Therefore, in our considered view the addition cannot be made withou proper material on record or bringing on record the proper joint statement from the builder as well as the assessee wherein assessee should be one of the party should concede that they have made the on-money. In this case merely relying on the s the third party and without giving opportunity to the assessee to prove its point of view, which is against the natural justice. In this situation, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to treat th as bad in law which was made purely on the basis of assumption and unverified statement of the third party. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5.9 Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of Yes Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 268/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2013 addition of the on-money without providing opportunity of the cross-examination. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “6. We have heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement taken from Shri Binesh Balakrishnan. The statement was given u/s. 133A of the Act and it is well settled proposition that the same does not have any evidentiary value. Hence, it is imperative for the AO to bring any other corroborative material to substantiate the entries made in the document. The responsibility of the assessing officer would go up, when the assessee denies the entries the document seized during the course of survey operations. ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 opportunity was granted to the assessee and only the statement recorded were supplied to the assessee and in fact, it was asked the assessee to bring the builder before the Assessing Officer. After careful consideration, we observe that the assessee is or will never in a position to bring any builder before the tax authorities, it is the duty of the tax authorities if they want to rely on statement to arrange for the cross examination and opportunity to be extended to he assessee. Apart from the above statement of the builder and whatever they have declared in their assessment was with the authorities, this information was never available with the Assessing Officer in this case, hence, there is no evidences available in hands of the Tax Authorities against the assessee except the statement of the builder. The additions proposed by the Assessing Officer merely relying on the statement of the builder. Therefore, in our considered view the addition cannot be made withou proper material on record or bringing on record the proper joint statement from the builder as well as the assessee wherein assessee should be one of the party should concede that they have money. In this case merely relying on the s the third party and without giving opportunity to the assessee to prove its point of view, which is against the natural justice. In this situation, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to treat the assessment order as bad in law which was made purely on the basis of assumption and unverified statement of the third party. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of Yes Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. No. 268/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2013 money without providing opportunity of the examination. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: We have heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement taken from Shri Binesh Balakrishnan. The statement was given u/s. 133A of the Act and it is well settled proposition that the same oes not have any evidentiary value. Hence, it is imperative for the AO to bring any other corroborative material to substantiate the entries made in the document. The responsibility of the assessing officer would go up, when the assessee denies the entries the document seized during the course of survey operations. Shri Biren Manna 15 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 opportunity was granted to the assessee and only the statement recorded were supplied to the assessee and in fact, it was asked the assessee to bring the builder before the Assessing Officer. After n, we observe that the assessee is or will never in a position to bring any builder before the tax authorities, it is the duty of the tax authorities if they want to rely on statement to arrange for the cross examination and opportunity to be extended to he assessee. Apart from the above statement of the builder and whatever they have declared in their assessment was with the authorities, this information was never available with the Assessing Officer in this case, hence, there is no evidences available in the hands of the Tax Authorities against the assessee except the statement of the builder. The additions proposed by the Assessing Officer merely relying on the statement of the builder. Therefore, in our considered view the addition cannot be made without bringing proper material on record or bringing on record the proper joint statement from the builder as well as the assessee wherein assessee should be one of the party should concede that they have money. In this case merely relying on the statement of the third party and without giving opportunity to the assessee to prove its point of view, which is against the natural justice. In this situation, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the e assessment order as bad in law which was made purely on the basis of assumption and unverified statement of the third party. Accordingly, appeal Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of Yes Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. No. 268/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2013-14 deleted the money without providing opportunity of the examination. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is We have heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement taken from Shri Binesh Balakrishnan. The statement was given u/s. 133A of the Act and it is well settled proposition that the same oes not have any evidentiary value. Hence, it is imperative for the AO to bring any other corroborative material to substantiate the entries made in the document. The responsibility of the assessing officer would go up, when the assessee denies the entries made in the document seized during the course of survey operations. Printed from counselvise.com However, we notice that the Assessing Officer neither made any further enquiry nor bring on record any other credible material to substantiate the entries made in the document that the as has made cash payment of Rs.1.61 crores. 7. Further, the entries made in the document are prone to discrepancies. The allotment letter for flats has been issued to the assessee on 22/03/2011, while the document notes down the date of allotment as 07 down the reliability of the document taken during the course of survey, as the entries made therein is contrary to the actual facts. It is stated that the flats were finally registered in the name of the assessee in Financial Year 2016 noted down in the Statement. The case of the assessee is that it has made all payments by way of cheques only and the relevant details were furnished to the AO. 8. The Ld A.R further submitted that the also supported by the valuation report issued by a registered valuer and this report support the case of the assessee that there was no necessity to pay part of consideration in cash, as the purchase was done at market rates. I No.3049/Mum/2016 dated 20 examined the addition made in the hands of buyer of flat on the basis of evidence seized from the builder during the course of search operations conducted bench expressed the view that the addition could not have been made on the basis of recording done at the end of builder, when the purchase consideration matches with the market rates and further no other evidence corro relevant observations made by the co said case are extracted below: \"15. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 the A.O on the ground that the assessee had made a payment of \"on money\" for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have perused the facts of the case and the material available on record on the basis of which the addition of Rs. made in the hands of the assessee. We have further deliberated on the material placed on record and the contentions of the Id. A.R to drive home his contention that no payment of any \"on money\" was made by the assessee for purchase of f Developers. We find that the genesis of the conclusion of the A.O that the assessee had paid \"on money\" of Rs. 2.23 crore for purchase of property under consideration is based on the contents of the pen drive which was seized from th ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 However, we notice that the Assessing Officer neither made any further enquiry nor bring on record any other credible material to substantiate the entries made in the document that the as has made cash payment of Rs.1.61 crores. 7. Further, the entries made in the document are prone to discrepancies. The allotment letter for flats has been issued to the assessee on 22/03/2011, while the document notes down the date of allotment as 07/01/2013. This apparent contradiction brings down the reliability of the document taken during the course of survey, as the entries made therein is contrary to the actual facts. It is stated that the flats were finally registered in the name of the e in Financial Year 2016-17 and this fact has not been noted down in the Statement. The case of the assessee is that it has made all payments by way of cheques only and the relevant details were furnished to the AO. 8. The Ld A.R further submitted that the purchase value of flats are also supported by the valuation report issued by a registered valuer and this report support the case of the assessee that there was no necessity to pay part of consideration in cash, as the purchase was done at market rates. In the case of Shri Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT (ITA No.3049/Mum/2016 dated 20-12-2017), the co-ordinate bench examined the addition made in the hands of buyer of flat on the basis of evidence seized from the builder during the course of search operations conducted u/s 132 of the Act. The co bench expressed the view that the addition could not have been made on the basis of recording done at the end of builder, when the purchase consideration matches with the market rates and further no other evidence corroborating those entries are found. The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench in the above said case are extracted below:- \"15. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee had made a payment of \"on money\" for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have perused the facts of the case and the material available on record on the basis of which the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore had been made in the hands of the assessee. We have further deliberated on the material placed on record and the contentions of the Id. A.R to drive home his contention that no payment of any \"on money\" was made by the assessee for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview Developers. We find that the genesis of the conclusion of the A.O that the assessee had paid \"on money\" of Rs. 2.23 crore for purchase of property under consideration is based on the contents of the pen drive which was seized from the residence of an ex Shri Biren Manna 16 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 However, we notice that the Assessing Officer neither made any further enquiry nor bring on record any other credible material to substantiate the entries made in the document that the assessee 7. Further, the entries made in the document are prone to discrepancies. The allotment letter for flats has been issued to the assessee on 22/03/2011, while the document notes down the date /01/2013. This apparent contradiction brings down the reliability of the document taken during the course of survey, as the entries made therein is contrary to the actual facts. It is stated that the flats were finally registered in the name of the 17 and this fact has not been noted down in the Statement. The case of the assessee is that it has made all payments by way of cheques only and the relevant details purchase value of flats are also supported by the valuation report issued by a registered valuer and this report support the case of the assessee that there was no necessity to pay part of consideration in cash, as the purchase was n the case of Shri Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT (ITA ordinate bench examined the addition made in the hands of buyer of flat on the basis of evidence seized from the builder during the course of u/s 132 of the Act. The co-ordinate bench expressed the view that the addition could not have been made on the basis of recording done at the end of builder, when the purchase consideration matches with the market rates and further borating those entries are found. The ordinate bench in the above \"15. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and crore made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee had made a payment of \"on money\" for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have perused the facts of the case and the material available on 2.23 crore had been made in the hands of the assessee. We have further deliberated on the material placed on record and the contentions of the Id. A.R to drive home his contention that no payment of any \"on money\" was lats from M/s Lakeview Developers. We find that the genesis of the conclusion of the A.O that the assessee had paid \"on money\" of Rs. 2.23 crore for purchase of property under consideration is based on the contents e residence of an ex- Printed from counselvise.com employee of Hiranandani group. We have perused the print out of the pen drive (Page 42 of APB) and find ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the Id A.R that though against the heading \"Amount of on money paid\" the name, addres No. of the assessee is mentioned alongwith the details of the property purchased by him, viz. Flat no.2501 in \"Somerset\" building from Lakeview Developers (a Hiranandani group concern), however, the same would not conclusively prove suppression o and payment of \"on money\" by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We find that the information as emerges from the print out of the pen drive falls short of certain material facts, viz. date and mode of receipt of \"on paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement and who had prepared the details, as a result whereof the adverse inferences as regards payment of \"on money\" by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration re uncorroborated. We further find that what was the source from where the information was received in the pen drive also remains a mystery till date. We find that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in the course of his cross was aware of the person who had made the entry in the pen drive, nor had with him any evidence that the assessee had paid any cash towards purchase of flat. We have deliberated on the fact that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in his statement recorded on course of the Search & seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amounts aggregating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive were the on- money received on sale of flats, which was offered as additional income under Sec. 132(4) and ther for tax in the petition filed before the Settlement commission. We are of the considered view that there is substantial force in the contention of the Id. A.R that mere admission of the amounts recorded in the pen drive as the additi Hiranandani, falling short of any such material which would inextricably evidence payment of \"on money\" by the assessee would not lead to drawing of adverse inferences as regards the investment made by the assessee for purchase consideration. We rather hold a strong conviction that the very fact that the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration when pitted against the \"market value\" fixed by the stamp valuation auth substantially high, further fortifies the veracity of the claim of the assessee that his investment made towards purchase of the property under consideration was well in order. We are of the considered view that though the material act department for drawing of adverse inferences as regards payment of \"on money\" by the assessee formed a strong basis for doubting the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 employee of Hiranandani group. We have perused the print out of the pen drive (Page 42 of APB) and find ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the Id A.R that though against the heading \"Amount of on money paid\" the name, addres No. of the assessee is mentioned alongwith the details of the property purchased by him, viz. Flat no.2501 in \"Somerset\" building from Lakeview Developers (a Hiranandani group concern), however, the same would not conclusively prove suppression o and payment of \"on money\" by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We find that the information as emerges from the print out of the pen drive falls short of certain material facts, viz. date and mode of receipt of \"on money\", who had paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement and who had prepared the details, as a result whereof the adverse inferences as regards payment of \"on money\" by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration re uncorroborated. We further find that what was the source from where the information was received in the pen drive also remains a mystery till date. We find that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in the course of his cross-examination had clearly stated that ne was aware of the person who had made the entry in the pen drive, nor had with him any evidence that the assessee had paid any cash towards purchase of flat. We have deliberated on the fact that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in his statement recorded on course of the Search & seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amounts aggregating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive money received on sale of flats, which was offered as additional income under Sec. 132(4) and thereafter offered as such for tax in the petition filed before the Settlement commission. We are of the considered view that there is substantial force in the contention of the Id. A.R that mere admission of the amounts recorded in the pen drive as the additional income by Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani, falling short of any such material which would inextricably evidence payment of \"on money\" by the assessee would not lead to drawing of adverse inferences as regards the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We rather hold a strong conviction that the very fact that the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration when pitted against the \"market value\" fixed by the stamp valuation authority is found to be substantially high, further fortifies the veracity of the claim of the assessee that his investment made towards purchase of the property under consideration was well in order. We are of the considered view that though the material acted upon by the department for drawing of adverse inferences as regards payment of \"on money\" by the assessee formed a strong basis for doubting the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property Shri Biren Manna 17 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 employee of Hiranandani group. We have perused the print out of the pen drive (Page 42 of APB) and find ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the Id A.R that though against the heading \"Amount of on money paid\" the name, address and PAN No. of the assessee is mentioned alongwith the details of the property purchased by him, viz. Flat no.2501 in \"Somerset\" building from Lakeview Developers (a Hiranandani group concern), however, the same would not conclusively prove suppression of investment and payment of \"on money\" by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We find that the information as emerges from the print out of the pen drive falls short of certain money\", who had paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement and who had prepared the details, as a result whereof the adverse inferences as regards payment of \"on money\" by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration remain uncorroborated. We further find that what was the source from where the information was received in the pen drive also remains a mystery till date. We find that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in the examination had clearly stated that neither he was aware of the person who had made the entry in the pen drive, nor had with him any evidence that the assessee had paid any cash towards purchase of flat. We have deliberated on the fact that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in his statement recorded on oath in the course of the Search & seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amounts aggregating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive money received on sale of flats, which was offered as eafter offered as such for tax in the petition filed before the Settlement commission. We are of the considered view that there is substantial force in the contention of the Id. A.R that mere admission of the amounts onal income by Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani, falling short of any such material which would inextricably evidence payment of \"on money\" by the assessee would not lead to drawing of adverse inferences as regards the investment of the property under consideration. We rather hold a strong conviction that the very fact that the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration when pitted against the \"market ority is found to be substantially high, further fortifies the veracity of the claim of the assessee that his investment made towards purchase of the property under consideration was well in order. We are of the ed upon by the department for drawing of adverse inferences as regards payment of \"on money\" by the assessee formed a strong basis for doubting the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property Printed from counselvise.com under consideration, but the same falling short which would have irrefutably evidenced the said fact, thus, does not inspire much of confidence as regards the way they have been construed by the lower authorities for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee. We t as the material relied upon by the lower authorities does not corroborate the adverse inferences drawn as regards the investment made by the assessee, therefore, the same cannot conclusively form a basis for concluding t made payment of \"on money\" for purchase of the property under consideration. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards payment of \"on money\" crore by the assessee for purchase of Flat No. 2501 from M/s Lakeview Developers are based on of premature observations of the A.O, which in the absence of any clinching evidence cannot be sustained. We thus are unable to subscribe to the view authorities and set aside the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 2.23 crores in the hands of the assessee. In the case before the co during the course of search operations conducted u/s Act and further the builder has offered the alleged on receipts as its income. The co action taken by the builder would not automatically support the presumption that the concerned assessee has paid on 9. In the instant case, the facts are not in better footing at all on account of following reasons: (a) The impugned document was found during the course of survey operations. (b) The accountant and director has admitted the entries in the statement taken u/s 133A of the Act, which does not have any evidentiary value. (c) The dates mentioned in the document did not match with actual dates of allotment or registration. (d) As observed by the co entries made viz. date and mode of receipt of \"on money\", who had paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement etc. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs.1.61 crores made by the AO is not ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 under consideration, but the same falling short of clinching material which would have irrefutably evidenced the said fact, thus, does not inspire much of confidence as regards the way they have been construed by the lower authorities for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee. We thus are of a strong conviction that as the material relied upon by the lower authorities does not corroborate the adverse inferences drawn as regards the investment made by the assessee, therefore, the same cannot conclusively form a basis for concluding that the assessee had made payment of \"on money\" for purchase of the property under consideration. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards payment of \"on money\" crore by the assessee for purchase of Flat No. 2501 from M/s Lakeview Developers are based on of premature observations of the A.O, which in the absence of any clinching evidence cannot be sustained. We thus are unable to subscribe to the view authorities and set aside the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 2.23 crores in the hands of the assessee. In the case before the co-ordinate bench, the pen drive was found during the course of search operations conducted u/s Act and further the builder has offered the alleged on receipts as its income. The co- ordinate bench has held that the action taken by the builder would not automatically support the presumption that the concerned assessee has paid on 9. In the instant case, the facts are not in better footing at all on account of following reasons:- (a) The impugned document was found during the course of survey (b) The accountant and director has admitted the entries in the t taken u/s 133A of the Act, which does not have any evidentiary value. (c) The dates mentioned in the document did not match with actual dates of allotment or registration. (d) As observed by the co-ordinate bench in the above said case, the entries made in the document falls short of certain material facts, viz. date and mode of receipt of \"on money\", who had paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement etc. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the ddition of Rs.1.61 crores made by the AO is not Shri Biren Manna 18 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 of clinching material which would have irrefutably evidenced the said fact, thus, does not inspire much of confidence as regards the way they have been construed by the lower authorities for drawing of adverse inferences hus are of a strong conviction that as the material relied upon by the lower authorities does not corroborate the adverse inferences drawn as regards the investment made by the assessee, therefore, the same cannot hat the assessee had made payment of \"on money\" for purchase of the property under consideration. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards payment of \"on money\" of Rs. 2.23 crore by the assessee for purchase of Flat No. 2501 from M/s Lakeview Developers are based on of premature observations of the A.O, which in the absence of any clinching evidence cannot be sustained. We thus are unable to subscribe to the view of the lower authorities and set aside the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 2.23 crores in the hands of the assessee. ordinate bench, the pen drive was found during the course of search operations conducted u/s 132(4) of the Act and further the builder has offered the alleged on-money ordinate bench has held that the action taken by the builder would not automatically support the presumption that the concerned assessee has paid on money. 9. In the instant case, the facts are not in better footing at all on (a) The impugned document was found during the course of survey (b) The accountant and director has admitted the entries in the t taken u/s 133A of the Act, which does not have any (c) The dates mentioned in the document did not match with actual ordinate bench in the above said case, the in the document falls short of certain material facts, viz. date and mode of receipt of \"on money\", who had paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement etc. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the ddition of Rs.1.61 crores made by the AO is not Printed from counselvise.com sustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the above said addition.” 5.10 The Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, have consistently held that additions on account of alleged on sustained where they rest solely on uncorroborated third statements or documents, particularly in the absence of cross examination, independent evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions lack of reliability of the entries r opportunity of cross the persons whose statement has b In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the addition of merely on assumptions, surmises, and unverified third material, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. T same, therefore, cannot be sustained. the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, the issue in dispute involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in t Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 sustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the above said The Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, have consistently eld that additions on account of alleged on-money cannot be sustained where they rest solely on uncorroborated third statements or documents, particularly in the absence of cross independent evidence linking the assessee to the ash transactions. In the instant case we have also noted lack of reliability of the entries recorded in the seized material and opportunity of cross-examination not provided to the assessee of statement has been relied for making addition In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the addition of ₹81,00,000/- merely on assumptions, surmises, and unverified third material, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. T same, therefore, cannot be sustained. The said addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, the issue in dispute involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ounced in the open Court on 22/12/2025. - Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Biren Manna 19 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 sustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the above said The Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, have consistently money cannot be sustained where they rest solely on uncorroborated third-party statements or documents, particularly in the absence of cross- independent evidence linking the assessee to the . In the instant case we have also noted ecorded in the seized material and to the assessee of een relied for making addition. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the has been made merely on assumptions, surmises, and unverified third-party material, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The he said addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, the issue in dispute involved In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. /12/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Dated: 22/12/2025 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 No. 6373/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shri Biren Manna 20 ITA No. 6373/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "
Other Referred Cases
Naren Premchand Nagda vs. ITO, Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO, ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills, ACIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain, Pramod Pandey vs. ACIT, Kundal Raghubir Bhandari vs. ITO, Yes Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026