DHIREN RAMBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 114/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the assessee, Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad, and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Ahmedabad, concerning the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The primary issues revolved around the alleged unaccounted cash received from the sale of land and the validity of the assessment orders under sections 153A and 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the evidences, including digital images and documents seized during the search, and the statements of involved parties, leading to the conclusion that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not substantiated by concrete evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841629 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: K. Mehta & Co. vs. Income Tax Officer, Shri Anil Rambhai Mewada vs. ACIT, GSG Abode LLP vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIGNESH DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Fair market value; Document seized; Documents seized; Retraction; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 131; 69; 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/AHD/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Sl. No(s) आयकर अपील सं/ IT(SS)A No(s) िनधा\u0010रण वष\u0010/ Assess- ment Year(s) Appeal(s) by : अपीलाथ\u0007 / \b थ\u0007 / Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent 1. 117/Ahd/2025 2019-20 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad, Parishram, Bharwad Vas, Ahmedabad City, Jivraj Park S.O., Ahmedabad-380051 PAN: ABXPB1573H Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Ahmedabad – 380009 2. 114/Ahd/2025 2020-21 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad ACIT, Central Circle-2(3) 3. 123/Ahd/2025 2019-20 ACIT, Central Circle- 2(3) Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad 4. 124/Ahd/2025 2020-21 ACIT, Central Circle- 2(3) Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 2 Date of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These cross appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue against separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Ahmedabad, dated 13.08.2025 and 27.08.2025 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2019-20 & 2020-21 respectively, in respect of proceedings u/s. 153A and u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the A.Y. 2019-20. IT(SS)A No. 117 & 123/Ahd/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of “Land Broker and Financer” group on 15.10.2019. The residence of the assessee was also covered in the search action in pursuance to which the proceeding u/s. 153A of the Act was initiated against the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s. 153A on 16.10.2021 at total income of Rs.20,48,69,869/-. In the course of assessment, the AO had made addition of Rs.19,67,39,459/- on account of undisclosed income against sale of land. Further, certain other additions were also worked out on the basis of the seized documents but Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 3 no separate addition was made in that respect as the assessee was allowed telescopic benefit. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 5. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in these two appeals: IT(SS)A No. 123/Ahd/2025 (Revenue) 1. \"In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,67,39,459/-made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed cash consideration received on the sale of land bearing Survey No.340/1 and 341, without appreciating the incriminating digital evidence seized during the search.\" 2. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,87,75,000/-to Rs. 1,08,77,500/- and deleting the balance addition of Rs.5,78,97,500/-, despite consistent and cogent evidence supporting the full amount of unaccounted cash payment\". 3. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.60,00,000/-made by the A.O. on account of cash payment to relatives of the seller for the purchase of land bearing Survey no.658.* 4. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in appreciating that the seized images and documents retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh Thakkar, a key broker in the transaction, clearly indicated unaccounted cash receipts and were admissible under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961\" IT(SS)A No. 117/Ahd/2025 (Assessee) Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 4 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming order passed by the AO u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) which is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act dated 14.07.2021 as the approval granted /issued under section 153D of the Act dated 13.07.2021 is invalid and bad in law an also on ground that the same do not contain DIN. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,77,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account forfeiture of advance received from M/s. Shukan Finance & Investment Service towards sale of land being land survey no. 415/4 belonging to Dhiren Bharwad. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. IT(SS)A No. 123/Ahd/2025 (AY 2019-20) Ground No.-1: On-money on sale of land 6. The first ground taken by the Revenue is in respect of addition of Rs.19,61,99,000/- on account of on-money received on sale of land. Shri Rignesh Das, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that a simultaneous search was carried out at residential premises of land broker namely Shri Suresh Thakkar, in the course of which certain images from his mobile phone were seized. The page No. 122 to 124 of the seized document reflected transactions pertaining to the assessee and his family members in respect of survey No. 340/1 and 341 situated at Makarba. Shri Suresh Thakkar in his statement had explained that the land at survey no. 340/1 and 341 admeasuring 17496 square yards was owned by the assessee and his family members which was sold to one Shri Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (Malubhai) at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per square yards for a total sale Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 5 consideration of Rs.87,48,26,160/-. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the total documented price of the land was Rs.16,09,19,000/- only. The AO had, therefore, treated the difference of Rs.71,39,07,160/- as on-money received by the assessee and the co-owners, towards sale of this land. The assessee was 1/3rd owner in survey No. 340/1 and 1/4th owner in survey No. 341. Accordingly, proportionate on-money of Rs.19,67,39,459/- received by the assessee on sale of these two lands was added in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that in view of the evidences found in the course of search as discussed in detail in the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition for on-money received by the assessee on sale of the land. 7. Per contra, Shri Vijay Mehta, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the document on the basis of which the addition was made, was not found from the premises of the assessee. He explained that Sh. Suresh Thakkar from whose possession the documents were found, was also not the broker involved in the sale transaction and no brokerage was paid to him. Further, the name of the assessee or any of the co-owners was nowhere appearing in the seized images. The Ld. AR submitted that as per statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar, the land was sold to Shri Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah whereas the land was never sold to him but it was sold to other parties namely Shri Vinod Shah, Ms. Sonal Shah & M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. In view of this fact the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar was not reliable and no addition could have been made on that basis. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no corroborative evidence to support the presumption of receipt of on-money of Rs.71,39,07,160/- in cash in the sale transaction and neither such cash was found in the course Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 6 of search. The Ld. AR further submitted that proceeding was initiated in the case of the buyers on the issue of on-money payment by them but no addition was made in their cases. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the addition for on-money receipt on sale of land. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the property being land at survey No. 340/1 and 341, co-owned by the assessee, was sold to Shri Vinodbhai Mangaldas Shah, Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah and to M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. In the course of search, no evidence was found from the assessee or any of his family members that any additional amount, over and above the consideration as per sale deed, was received by them towards sale consideration of the lands. The only basis of addition of Rs.19,67,37,459/- on account of on-money receipt on sale of land was the images retrieved from the mobile of Shri Suresh Thakkar. As is evident from the image, the name of the assessee or any of the co-owners or the name of the buyer(s) does not appear anywhere in this document. Thus, there was no direct evidence to implicate the assessee with these seized documents. The AO had merely relied upon the explanation of Shri Suresh Thakkar as given in his statement, the relevant part of which has been reproduced in the assessment order. It is found that as per statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar, he had facilitated this deal. However, no evidence for payment of any brokerage to him in this deal was brought on record. Even the name of the buyer of the land as stated by Shri Suresh Thakkar was found to be incorrect. In the absence of any evidence for receipt of on-money in this sale transaction being found in the course of search, the addition couldn’t Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 7 have been sustained only on the basis of incorrect statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar. 9. It is found that the ld. CIT(A) had considered the evidences pertaining to this issue in detail and deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 8.7 I have carefully perused the submission furnished by the appellant and assessment order passed by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that during the course of search action at the residential premises of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, digital images in the form of page no.122 and 124 were retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar. Shri Suresh Thakkar statement dated 30/11/2019 & 02/12/2019 inter-alia deposed that the deal of the land was carried out through him and the owners of the land including assessee has received on-money over and above the documented value. The relevant part of the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar has been reproduced on page No.3 & 4 of the assessment order. On the basis of the statement and evidence found in the mobile phone of Shri Suresh Thakkar, the AO made addition of on-money Rs. 19,67,39,459/- (being 1/3rd of Rs. 21,92,08,000/- and 1/4th of Rs. 49,46,80.500) received by the appellant on sale of land bearing survey No. 340/1 & 341 located at Makarba from M/s Vinod Shah, M/s Sonal Shah and Mis. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. 8.8 The appellant has stated that Sh. Suresh Thakkar had retracted statement by filing an affidavit dated 31.03.2021 before the AO of the appellant. In fact, he had addressed to the AO a letter dated 12.03.2021 clarifying the correct facts. The AO has not examined him subsequent to retraction made by him. Further, it has been stated that the appellant was not given an opportunity of cross-examination of Sh. Suresh Thakkar. The appellant also submitted that he brought to the notice of the AO that Sh. Suresh Thakkar has given various incorrect statements, some of which are enumerated as follows i. In the given case, as per the statement dated 30.11.2019 and 02 12 2019 of Shri Suresh Thakkar, in answer to question no 5 the land bearing survey no 340/1 and 341 situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad has been sold to Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (Malubhai). However, in Q. no. 6 of statement dated 02.12.2019, Shri Suresh Thakkar was asked that the land has been sold to Vinodbhai Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 8 Mangaldas Shah and Sonal Rajeev Shah vide agreement dated 11.04.2018 (survey no 340/1) and Stone Touch Infraspace LLP (belonging to Deepak Vaswani, Rajesh Vaswani, Dilip Lalwani, Jitendra Lalwani and Kamal Lalwani as partners) vide agreement dated 17.04.2018 (survey no. 341). As per the registered agreement the buyer of the property is third party which is totally different as per Shri Suresh Thakkar's statement. This shows that the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar cannot be relied upon. Additionally, in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar dated 02.12.2019 in answer to question no 6, he has referred to MOU and as per the MOU, the total sale consideration is Rs. 87,48,26,160/-, however, no such MOU was found from the premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar or the assessee. This shows that the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar is uncredible and absurd. ii. In the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar recorded on 02.12.2019, in answer to question no 7 wherein he has stated that page no 146 is working of sale of plot of land (TP 204), admeasuring 3000 sq yards situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad and sale consideration of the said land is Rs. 17.23 Cr out which total payment of Rs 4.48 Cr is through cheque The said statement is incorrect as the assessee has received total payment of Rs 5.94 Cr (net of TDS Rs. 6,00,000/-) through cheque for the subject land which does not match with the statement given by Shri Suresh Thakkar iii. Also, in the statement recorded of Shri Suresh Thakkar u/s 132(4) of the Act on 15.10.2019, he has given incorrect answer on confronting seized material found from him and the same was retracted by him in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 26.11.2019. In the statement recorded on 15.10.2019 of Shri Suresh Thakkar, in answer to question no.20 and 28 he has initially stated page no 4 found from Suresh Thakkar is related to land purchased from Shri Dhirenbhai Rambhai Bharwad. The total price of the land is Rs. 20,47,32,000/-out of which amount of Rs. 17,26,32,000/- are cash payments. Later in the statement recorded on 26 11.2019, in answer to question no 7 he has clarified that page No. 3 & 4 found from his residence alongwith page No. 1 to 7 that the papers are actually related to the Okaf land purchased by him and Rajnibhai Dhanjibhai Chunara from Noor Mohmmed and Sarvarbhai and in page no 4 is the proposal given by him alongwith Rajnibhai to Dhiren Ramanlal Shah (Malu) of sale of Okaf land. These instances raised suspicion over the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar 8.9 The appellant has further stated that the statement given by Sh. Suresh Thakkar cannot be relied upon as there are no basis of connecting the notings of the impugned seized material with the plot of land sold by the appellant. The appellant has further stated that the appellant had filed a copy of an affidavit from the actual buyer stating the accurate facts confirming that no on-money is paid by the buyer to the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 9 8.10 The appellant in his submission has stated that the original document was neither found from the premises of third party nor from the premises of the appellant. It has been submitted that the seized material did not have the name of the parties, their signature, nature of transaction or details of terms and conditions of the transactions. It is also submitted that the seized material cannot be relied upon as no such transaction has taken place. The appellant submitted that the name of the buyer mentioned by Sh. Suresh Thakkar ie, Sh. Dhiren Ramanial Shah is not the actual buyer to whom the land has been sold. Further the appellant contended that the AO has compared the price of MOU with Sh. Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (in respect of both the lands) with the agreement value of the lands sold to different parties (Sh. Vinod Shah, Mis. Sonal Shah, Mis Stone Touch Infraspace LLP) on different dates. It has further mentioned that there is no relationship between Sh. Dhiren Ramanlal Shah and Sh. Vinod Shah, Ms. Sonal Shah. M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP As per the statement of Sh. Suresh Thakkar, the land has been sold to Sh. Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (Malubhai) (Q no. 5). However, in Q no. 6. Shri Suresh Thakkar was asked that the land has been sold to Sh. Vinodbhal Mangaldas Shah and Ms. Sonal Rajeev Shah (being survey no. 340/1 vide agreement dated 11.04.2018) and to M/S Stone Touch Infraspace LLP (belonging to Sh. Deepak Vaswani, Rajesh Vaswani, Dilip Lalwani Jitendra Lalwani and Kamal Lalwani as partners) vide agreement dated 17.04.2018 (survey no. 341) In response he has simply not clarified this discrepancy It was also pointed out that the dates of transaction as per the seized material do not match with the actual transactions. Further, as per the seized material, the payments were to be made on or before 05.02.2018. However, it is the submission of the appellant that the sale consideration has been received by the appellant on 20.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 for land bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341 The agreement has been entered into on 11.04.2018 17.04.2018 pertaining to larid bearing survey no 341 (purchased by the appellant). Also, the agreement for land survey no 340/1 has been entered into on 11.04.2018 and the payment has been received on 20.02.2018. The alleged receipt of sale consideration as per the seized material is from only one party ie Sh Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (Malubhai) and there is no break- up of cash or cheque. As against that, there are two buyers in whose favour land have been conveyed It is submitted that the AO has merely divided the alleged consideration proportionately and has reduced the cheque component therefrom. 8.11 From the discussion held above, the facts emerges as under - Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 10 i. It is undisputed fact that neither Sh. Suresh Thakkar has received any brokerage nor appellant has paid any brokerage to him. The AO has also accepted these facts as no addition of brokerage has been made in the assessment of Sh Suresh Thakkar towards the land deal bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341 situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad Therefore, these land deal done through Sh. Suresh R. Thakkar is not found correct ii. It is also an irrefutable fact that the seized material did not have the name of the parties, their signature, nature of transaction or details of terms and conditions of the transactions. However, in absence of such details, the AO has not conducted any independent enquiries iii. On confronting the alleged image to Sh. Suresh Thakkar, he has stated that the lands bearing survey no 340/1 and 341 have been sold to Dhiren Ramanlal Shah whereas the actual fact is the said land was never sold to him. The land bearing no 340/1 and 341 are sold Vinod Shah, Sonal Shah, Stone Touch Infraspace LLP Additionally, in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar dated 02.12.2019 in answer to question no 6, he has referred to MOU and as per the MOU, the total sale consideration is Rs 87.48,26,160/-however, no such MOU was found from the premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar or the appellant's premises. It is also pertinent to mention here that no independent inquiries were made by the AO to verify the correctness of contents of the alleged image and truthfulness of the statement of Sh Suresh Thakkar. iv. The name of the buyer mentioned by Sh. Suresh Thakkar ie, Sh. Dhiren Ramanlal Shah is not the actual buyer to whom the land has been sold The AO has imposed rate of the land and others terms and conditions decided with Sh. Dhirenbhai Ramanlal Shah (in respect of both the land) on the actual purchasers ie. Sh Vinod Shah. Ms. Sonal Shah, M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP v. The AO has failed to establish the link between the contents of the image with the actual transactions. If there were different buyers then the notings of each buyer would have been different and terms and conditions of it. 8.12. In addition to the above facts, it is important to mention here that the assessment orders have been passed in the case of purchasers, namely Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh Vinod Mangaldas Shah and Mis Stone Touch Infraspace LLP in which no adverse view has been taken by the AO. In the assessments completed u/s. 153C of the Act. The said assessment orders have been passed by the very same AO, Le ACIT-CC. 2(3), who have passed the impugned order. The assessment orders have been passed much after the date of the assessment order in the case of the appellant. The AO while issuing show cause notice to the appellant has Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 11 determined and cumulated the assessment in making addition in the hands of the appellant for the year under consideration on the ground that Sh Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and Mis. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP has paid on-money of Rs. 71,38,88,500/- to Shri Dhiren R. Bharwad & Others for purchasing of land bearing survey No. 340/1 and 341 However, the assessment proceedings in the case of Sh Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP were initiated on the issue of on-money payment to Shri Dhiren Bharwad & Others towards the purchase of land bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341 but completed without taking any adverse view in the case of Sh Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP in the assessment orders u/s 153C of the Act. The AO in the assessment order himself admitted the fact that Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah has not purchased the land under reference as the deal could not be materialized with Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah meaning thereby payment of on-money has not been made by Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah. Thereafter, on the basis of information available on public domain (copy of 7/12 abstract of land bearing survey no.340/1 and 341) and statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the AO concluded that payment of on-money towards the purchase of land under reference. has been made by actual purchasers ie, Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah. Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP Based on the said statement, assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated in the case of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, however, no adverse view of purported payment of on-money was made by the same AO in these cases for the AYs under the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The AO's decision not to make any additions in the cases of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Shri Vinod Mangaldas Shah, and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, clearly establishes that the purchasers did not make any payment of on-money for the purchase of land bearing Survey No 340/1 and 341 to Shri Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad & Others, including the appellant, who is a co-owner of the land Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the said image having some handwritten notings cannot be the basis for addition made as there is no specific evidence brought by the AO that the appellant has received the amount of Rs. 19.67.39.459/- in cash against the land under reference. The said image cannot be a basis for the conclusion reached by the AO and on the basis of said image, a presumption cannot be raised about receipt of cash of Rs 19.67 crore The AO has not brought any corroborative material to suggest that cash amount of Rs. 19.67 crore has been received by the appellant. Moreover, the AO has not conducted any further inquiry to substantiate the addition. More importantly, no adverse view has been taken in the hands of the purchasers on the said issue. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 12 10. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), who has meticulously examined each and every aspect of the transaction and given a categorical finding as to why the addition of Rs.19.67 crores in respect of alleged on-money couldn’t have been made. As already mentioned earlier no evidence was found in the course of search either from the assessee or from the other co-owners that they had received any extra consideration other than the amount as mentioned in the sale deed. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, regarding receipt of on-money in the sale transaction, the addition of Rs. 19,67,39,459/- in respect of on-money receipt in cash, on sale of land could not have been sustained. Further, when no addition for on-money payment was made in the case of Sh. Vinod Shah, Ms Sonal Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP, the buyers of the property, in the assessments completed in their cases by the same AO, there was no justification for making the addition in the hand of the sellers. 11. The Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 68/Ahd/2025 dated 27.08.2025 had considered the issue of on-money in sale of land in survey No. 341 in the case of the co-owner Jiviben Rambhai Bharwad and given the following findings in this regard: 8. We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including the paper book and case laws filed by the assessee. The Ld AO based on the digital images found from the mobile phone of Suresh R Thakkar more particularly Page Nos.122 to 124 held that the assessee received on-money of Rs.12,36,70,125/- being her 1/4th share in land Survey No.341 which is reproduced at Page No.11 of the assessment order. Whereas the very same assessing officer in the case of the purchaser of land namely M/s. Stone Touch Infra Space LLP in which no adverse view has been taken by the A.O. in the assessment Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 13 completed u/s.153C of the Act which was also passed by the very same Assessing Officer ACIT-CC 2(3). The AO in the assessment order himself admitted the fact that Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah has not purchased the land under reference as the deal could not be materialized with Shri Dhiren Ramanlal Shah meaning thereby alleged payment of on-money has not been made by Shri Dhiren R Shah. 8.1. Thereafter, on the basis of information available on public domain (copy of 7/12 abstract of land bearing survey no. 340/1 and 341) and statement of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the AO concluded that payment of on-money towards the purchase of land under reference has been made by actual purchasers namely Ms Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s. Stone Touch Infraspace LLP. Based on the said statement, assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were initiated in the case of Ms. Sonal Rajiv Shah, Sh. Vinod Mangaldas Shah and M/s Stone Touch infraspace LLP, however, no addition of purported payment of on-money was made by the same AO in these cases for the Asst. Year made under section 153C of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer is not justified in making addition on the very same mobile phone images for making addition of Rs.12.36 crores in the hands of the seller of the land. 8.2. Further Statement of the land broker Shri Suresh R Thakkar is considered by this Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of K. Mehta & Co. (cited supra) by observing as follows: “… 7.2. It is undisputed fact that Shri Suresh R. Thakkar is only a land– mediator and not owner of the land. Based on the statements recorded of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, the above addition is made by the Assessing Officer. This digital images are not related to the assessee firm and there is no signature and there is no hand writing of the assessee in the above images. Correspondingly, the A.O. is not found any Agreement or Banakhat or any piece of evidences for payment of cash found during the course of search. 7.3. Further Shri Suresh R. Thakkar in his statement recorded clearly submitted that he has not received his commission (Dalali) which will be at 1% on the quantum of the deal amount. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 14 Thus the Assessing Officer without any seized material but only with this piece of digital image recovered from the search premises. Merely based on the ground that the survey no. and name of Shri Mahesh Mehta reflecting in that piece of loose paper the Ld. A.O. came to the conclusion that ‘on-money’ of Rs. 2.69 crores paid by the assessee. Further the assessee was not given any opportunity of cross-examining the so called Shri Suresh R. Thakkar based on which addition was made by the A.O. It is well settled principle of law mere admission in statement without any corroborative evidence or materials cannot be the basis for making additions in the hands of the assessee. Further the Assessing Officer is totally silent about the retraction (Notarized) statement dated 11-09- 2019 made by Shri Suresh R. Thakkar, which is placed at Page Nos. 196 to 211 of the Paper Book (with the duly English translation)…… …………………….. 7.4. In his retraction statement Shri Suresh R. Thakkar made it very clear in the present social media era, small big brokers and other people are sending false and true proposals to him on whatsapp. Such proposals are not transformed in the true transactions and the prices are not certain. Further due to legal complications and family disputes many deals does not get through. Thus the Assessing Officer has not given any weightage to the retraction (Notarized) statement dated 11-09-2019 made by Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. Further the Assessing Officer do not even have in possession, the so called Cancellation Deed with Smt. Tarini Johri as well as the piece of paper jottings said to be seized from the premises of Shri Suresh R. Thakkar. However only the digital images are reproduced at Page Nos. 131, 140, 155 and 208 and came to the conclusion that the assessee has received ‘on-money’ payment of Rs.2,69,65,440/-, which are liable to be deleted. 7.5. Further the Assessing Officer though noted that the Sale Deed value as per Document No. 7670/2019 registered as Sale Deed on 19- 06-2019 for a value of Rs. 96,00,000/- which is as per the Jantri Value approved by the State Government. In the above circumstances, the Assessing Officer has not verified the value land by referring to the DVO before making such addition of ‘on-money’ in the hands of the assessee. Further more when the assessee sold the above property on 07-06-2021 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2.5 crores and declared is 50% share of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 15 profit as Rs. 74,16,500/- which is in the profit and loss account, the same was accepted by the very same Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 15-12-2022. ……. 9. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are devoid of merits and liable to be deleted. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, we are not adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee invoking Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 12. In view of the facts as discussed earlier as well as respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate bench referred above and also the fact that no addition for on-money payment was made in the hands of the buyers, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the addition of on-money of Rs.19,67,39,459/- made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: Cash payment for purchase of land 13. The Ground No. 2 taken by the Revenue pertains to addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/- on account of cash payment towards purchase of land bearing No. Survey No. 736/2, which was reduced to Rs.1,08,77,500/- by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is also in appeal on this issue vide ground No. 4 raised in his appeal. The brief facts of the case are that in the course of search at the premises of M/s. Dharnidhar Developers, certain images from mobile phone of one Shri Alpesh Thakur, an employee, was retrieved and seized. The page No. 66 of the digital data was hand written noting Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 16 dated 06.10.2018 which referred to survey No. 736/2 admeasuring 4351 sq. yards owned jointly by the assessee with his brothers Shri Deepak and Anil Mewada. The noting in this image included a figure of Rs.3,26,32,500/- worked out by multiplying area of 4351 sq. yards with 7500, taken as rate. Below the figure of 3,26,32,500/- the payment details were noted in code which were “1.10 - 25.10.2018”, “1.10 - 25.01.2019” and “1.06 - 25.03.2019”. At the bottom, it was mentioned “Document as per government rate”. On the right hand side of the document there was a noting “Deduct 9,30,000 of Deven Vaghela”. In the post search statement, the assessee was enquired about this seized document and he had admitted that the noting made on 06.10.2018 related to land bearing survey No. 736/2 purchased by him and his family members. Further that the noting was in coded form, though he was unable to recall the exact detail of specific transaction recorded on the page. Another document was seized from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, wherein details of land transaction related to survey No. 736/1+2+3+4+5 was noted. Shri Thakkar had stated that this document was in respect of land purchased by the assessee at Spring Valley Scheme behind Karnavati Plot, Ahmedabad. As per his statement the land bearing No. 736/2 was sold by Ravindra Hotilal Maheshwari & family to the assessee and his family members at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per sq. yards for a total sale consideration of Rs. 32,63,25,000/-, the documentation of which was done on 28.12.2018 at Jantri value of Rs. 12 crores and balance amount of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- was paid in cash. On the basis of these evidences, the AO had made addition of difference of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- paid in cash by the assessee and the other co-owners. As the assessee was 1/3rd co- owner, an addition of Rs.6,87,75,000/- was made in the hand of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 17 assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the total addition of Rs. 20,63,25,000/-, had upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.3,26,32,500/- as appearing in the hand-written note dated 06.10.2018. Accordingly, 1/3rd of the said amount, Rs.1,08,77,500/- was upheld in the hands of the assessee. 14. Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the fact that the assessee had purchased the land bearing survey No. 736/2 was not disputed. He explained that the noting at page No. 66 of the seized document was in code and this fact was admitted by the assessee in his statement. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, the figure of “3,26,32,500/-“ appearing in this seized document was also written in code along with the rate. According to him, the actual rate was 75,000/- per square yards and not “7500” as noted in the document and accordingly the sale consideration worked out to Rs.32,63,25,000/- by applying this rate. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that it was very unlikely that any piece of land agreed to be purchased at Rs.3,26,32,500/-, will be registered at the value of Rs.12 crores. Therefore, the AO had rightly taken the sale consideration at Rs. 32,63,25,000/- considering the entry appearing in the seized documents and the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar. Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition of proportionate cash payment of Rs.6,87,75,000/- made by the assessee on the basis of evidences found in the course of search. 15. Per contra, Shri Vijay Mehta, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that as per page no. 66 of mobile data of Shri Alpesh Thakur, the consideration mentioned therein was “3,26,32,500/-“, which was not in code. He explained that this price was agreed considering the fact that the title of the impugned plot of land was not clear and was subject to litigation. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 18 Subsequently, the seller had removed the defect in the title and, therefore, the plot was purchased for a consideration of Rs 12 crores vide registered agreement dated 28.08.2018. He submitted that this document was not found from the assessee but from a third party and, therefore, there was no question of the entry being recorded by the assessee in code. The Ld. AR reiterated that the sale consideration as per this seized document was Rs. 3,26,32,500/- only and considering the fact that the assessee had actually purchased the land at a much higher price, no addition was called for at all on account of any extra payment. As regarding statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar, the Ld. AR submitted that the whatsapp chat retrieved from the mobile of Shri Thakkar was communication made by him with one Shri Ashok Damani and not with the assessee. He submitted that the context in which this whatsapp chat was exchanged between Shri Suresh Thakkar and Shri Ashok Damani was never explained. Further no evidence was appearing in this communication that the assessee had purchased the plot No. 736/2 at the rate of 75,000 per sq. yards. The assessee was also not allowed any opportunity to cross-examine Shri Suresh Thakkar. Further that no evidence for any cash payment for purchase of land was found in the course of search from the premises of the assessee. Under the circumstance, there was no basis for making this addition. The Ld. AR further submitted that Shri Suresh Thakkar was in the habit of making incorrect statements and no addition could have been made on the basis of his statement. He further submitted that the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of materials seized from third party premises. The Ld. AR further submitted that considering the evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the payment of Rs. 3,26,32,500/- as appearing in the seized documents at page No. 66 of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 19 mobile data of Alpesh Thakur, was additional amount of payment made in cash, over and above the documented value. He contended that when the property was registered at a value higher than the price as initially agreed upon, there was no question of any additional payment. As an alternate argument, the Ld. AR submitted that even if the amount mentioned in the page No. 66 is considered as additional payment, only the payment made till the date of sale deed i.e. payment of Rs. 1.10 crores only made on 25.10.2018 could have been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). There can’t be any question of further payment after the sale deed was executed. 16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the materials and evidences brought on record. The addition of proportionate cash payment of Rs. 6,87,75,000/- was made on the basis of page No. 66 of image recovered from mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakur. In the said image, the name of the assessee or any of his family member or of any of the seller(s) does not appear. The said document has been linked to the assessee only with survey No. 736/2 appearing therein, as this piece of land was purchased by the assessee and his family members. No statement of Shri Alpesh Thakur, from whose mobile this data was retrieved, was recorded in the course of search. The Revenue has also been unable to establish that the entries in this seized document was in the hand-writing of the assessee himself. Since the document was neither recovered from the assessee nor was in his own hand-writing, no addition could have been made merely on the basis of the entries appearing in this seized document, without any corroborative evidence. When the assessee was confronted with this document, he had admitted that the figures written on the page were in coded form but he was unable to explain the codes. We have carefully perused this document. So far as Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 20 the area, rate and amount appearing in this document is concerned, we do not find any code. In fact, the amount written on this page is “32632500/-” which can’t be held to be in code. Only the amount noted to be paid on different dates is found appearing in code viz. “1.10”, “1.10” and “1.06”, which totals to earlier mentioned amount of Rs.3.26 crores. Further, the Revenue also did not cause any enquiry from “Deven Vaghela” whose name was appearing in this document, in order to unravel the correct nature of transaction. 17. The AO has relied upon the corroborative statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar. In the document seized from the mobile of the Shri Suresh Thakkar, only reference of plot no. 736/2 was appearing. No mention of any rate or sale consideration is found appearing in the said seized document. Though Shri Suresh Thakkar had stated that the noting at page No. 67 was in respect of purchase of land by Shri Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad, no sale price or rate is found appearing in this document. There is reference of 5 different plots of land in this document. The statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar regarding survey no. 736/2 was a bald statement, not supported with any corresponding entry regarding rate and sale consideration appearing in this seized document. Further, the AO also did not make any enquiry with the seller of the land about the actual rate and the sale consideration received by them. Thus, the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per sq. yards as taken by the AO is not backed by any supporting evidence and is based on mere statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar, whose locus standi in this transaction was never explained. The communication seized from the mobile of Shri Suresh Thakkar was not made with the assessee but with a third party namely Ashok Damani and the context of this communication was not explained. As rightly pointed out by the assessee Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 21 no evidence for any on-money payment for purchase of this land was found in the course of search at the premises of the assessee or any of his family members. Neither any evidence has been brought on record by the AO that the market rate of the land purchased by the assessee was 75,000/- per sq. yards. Under the circumstances, no addition for any cash payment of purchase of this land could have been made. Considering these facts, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 20,63,25,000/- on account of on-money payment in purchase of land at survey No. 736/2. 18. At the same time, the assessee has not explained as to why the land agreed to be purchased at “32632500/-” was registered as per sale deed at Rs.12 crores within a period of less than three months. Neither the nature of defect in title of the land was explained nor any evidence for litigation of the land was brought on record by the assessee. Further, no communication in this respect with the owners of the land, was produced to justify the abnormal increase in the sale price. There can be minor adjustment in the sale consideration due to certain defect in the title. But the increase in sale consideration by 275% certainly required proper justification and documentary evidence. In the absence of any cogent explanation for this abnormal increase in sale consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition of on-money payment of Rs. 20,63,25,000/-, had held that the assessee had made this additional payment of Rs. 3.26 crores in cash (as recorded in the seized document page No. 66 recovered from mobile data of Shri Alpesh Thakur). According to the Ld. CIT(A) this amount was paid in cash over and above the documented value. In the absence of any cogent explanation for the abnormal increase in the sale consideration, the conclusion as drawn by Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 22 the Ld. CIT(A) can’t be faulted. The entry in this seized document categorically mentions that the document would be made at jantri value, which corroborates the conclusion that the payments recorded in this document were not to be accounted for. Further, the payments recorded in this seized document were also not appearing in the sale deed. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the entries at page No. 66 were in respect of payments made in cash over and above the documented value. At the same time, only the payment made as per this document till the date of execution of sale deed, should have been considered and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) as additional payment. As rightly contended by the assessee, there was no question of any payment after the sale deed was executed. As per this document only payment of Rs. 1.10 crores on 25.10.2018 was made prior to the sale deed. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is restricted to Rs. 1.10 crores and proportionate 1/3rd addition of Rs.36,66,667/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed while the ground of the assessee is partly allowed. Ground No.-3 & 4: Cash payment 19. Ground No. 3 and 4 pertains to addition of Rs. 60 lakhs on account of cash payment to relatives of the seller for the purchase of land bearing survey number 658. In the course of search at the premises of M/s. Dharnidhar Developers another image/document (Page No.54) was seized from the mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakore, an employee, the contents of which were as under: Khodaji Shivji Thakore – 15 Kantiji Shivji Thakore – 15 Baldevji Shakraji Thakore – 30 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 23 In the course of post search inquiry, the assessee had explained that he had purchased a land bearing survey number 658 located at Makarba along with Deepakbhai Mewada and Anilbhai Mewada from one Shri Sakraji Bhalaji. The name mentioned in these documents were the relatives of the seller of the land. The assessee had explained that the seller was required to take confirmation from his close relatives approving the sale transaction and those 3 relatives had demanded the amount as mentioned in the seized document for not causing any dispute with respect to the transfer/sale of land. It was further submitted that the assessee had requested the seller to sort out the matter with his relatives and no payment was made by the assessee. The AO, however, had concluded on the basis of this evidence that the assessee had made payment of Rs.60 lakhs to the 3 relatives of the seller of the land for obtaining a clear title of the land and had considered it as payment towards purchase consideration. However, no separate addition of Rs. 60 lakhs was made for the reason that the on-money received by the assessee against the sale of land was much higher and telescopic benefit was allowed to the assessee. 20. Shri Rignesh Das, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that since the addition of on-money received by the assessee was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), telescopic benefit was no longer available to the assessee. Therefore, he should have upheld the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs on account of payment made to the relatives of the sellers, as appearing in the seized document. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 21. Per contra, Shri Vijay Mehta, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the AO was based on mere presumption. He submitted Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 24 that neither the document was found from the assessee nor the payment of Rs 60 lakhs was ever admitted by the assessee. Under the circumstances, no addition could have been made on the basis of this document seized from a third party, which was only a dumb document. He submitted that neither the name of the assessee nor any date of payment was appearing in the seized document. Further there was no corroborative evidence to support the presumption of payment of Rs 60 lakhs. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 22. We have considered the rival submission and carefully gone through the seized document which is reproduced in the assessment order. The image retrieved from the mobile of Sh. Alpesh Thakore was a handwritten note with 3 names and figures appearing against them, as already mentioned earlier. The Revenue did not record the statement of Shri Alpesh Thakore from whose mobile this document were seized. The assessee in his statement had categorically denied having made any payment to the three persons whose name was appearing in the seized image. No enquiry was conducted by the AO from the three persons whose name was appearing and the factum of receipt of amount of Rs. 60 lakhs by them was not confirmed. There was no corroborative evidence brought on record in support of alleged payment of Rs. 60 lakhs by the assessee to the 3 relatives of the seller of the land. Under the circumstances, no addition could have been made on the basis of evidence available with the department. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered the evidence in right perspective and deleted the addition after giving the following findings: “10.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that he had purchased the land from Sakaraji Bhalaji Thakore, Ambalal Thanaji Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 25 Thakore Bhajiben M. Thakore, Dahyaji Bhalaji Thakore and Cheharaji Thanaji Thakore on 07.02.2017 through registered deed and vehemently contended that no transactions took place with the relatives as they had already acquired the property with clear title from the owners of the land and were not liable to pay any sum to his relatives. The seized material being relied upon by the AO is dated 03.07.2018. Accordingly, the appellant has taken confirmation from all the relatives vide registered agreement dated 04.07.2018 (Kabulatano Lekh) that they will not be claiming any rights on the given land and no sum was paid The appellant has also relied upon various judicial decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and others in his support. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. 10.4 On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that seized material being relied upon is an image of photocopy of a handwritten documents retrieved from an employee Alpesh Thakor's. On perusal of the seized material, it is firstly very clear that there is no mention of any cash paid or payable, the impugned seized material has merely has name of the person and two-digit figures. There is no signature over it to confirm that the party would be receiving the sum of money from the appellant. During the course of post- search proceedings, in his statement dated 06/02/2020, the appellant clarified that Page No. 54 contained the names of individuals from whom he had purchased land bearing Survey No. 658 situated in Makarba village, along with the respective ages of those persons. Thereafter, in a written submission dated 11/03/2020 filed before the DDIT (Investigation), Unit 2(2), Ahmedabad, the assessee further explained that the land in question was jointly purchased by himself, Deepakbhai Mevada, and Anil Mevada from one Sakaraji Bhalaji. The names appearing on the impugned page were identified as relatives of the seller. After the transaction, when the purchasers requested confirmations from the seller's close relatives regarding the transfer of ownership, some of them allegedly demanded certain amounts-Rs. 15 lakhs each by Khdoaji Shivaji and Kantiji Shivaji, and Rs. 30 lakhs by Baldevji Shakraji-on the pretext of not raising any disputes related to the land transfer The assessee maintained that they had no involvement in these demands, having already acquired clear title to the property, and categorically denied making any such payments to the relatives At no point in the statements or submissions did the assessee admit to having paid the amounts noted on the seized material to the individuals named therein. The appellant has submitted that the AO accepted the appellant's partial explanation regarding the relatives' demand for a certain amount but failed to justify why the full explanation that no payment was made and was Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 26 not accepted. This selective acceptance, without clear reasoning, undermines the fairness and transparency of the facts. The seized material was retrieved from the mobile of an employee. Alpesh Thakore. However, the AO did not record any statement from him. The AO did not conduct any inquiry to verify the authenticity or context of the seized material. Furthermore, there is no corroborative evidence linking the Rs.60 lakh figure to any actual payment made by the appellant. The absence of such evidence renders the addition speculative and unsupported. The Id. AO had failed to provide the evidence being relied upon to arrive at the inference that the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs had been paid by the assessee to the said parties in cash. The appellant's judgment on registered documents carry significant evidentiary value and are presumed to be genuine unless proven otherwise.” 23. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The alleged incriminating material was recovered from the mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakore, who was not a party to any of the transactions in question. The image relied upon by the AO was also not between the parties to this transaction. Further the image did not contain name of the assessee, land description or any other indication connecting the said document to the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made on the basis of such dumb document. The AO had also not brought any corroborative material on record in support of the alleged payment of Rs. 60 lakhs by the assessee to the relatives to the sellers of this land. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition and his decision on this issue is upheld. The grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. IT(SS)A No 117/Ahd/2025: (AY 2019-20) 25. The Ground No. 1 to 3 taken by the assessee were not pressed by the Ld. AR in the course of hearing. Hence, these grounds are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 27 26. Ground No. 4 pertains to addition of Rs. 1,08,77,500/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on account of cash payment towards purchase of land at survey No. 736/2. We have already adjudicated this ground while deciding the ground No. 2 taken by the Revenue and the ground is partly allowed. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No. 124/Ahd/2025 (AY 2020-21) 28. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 19,61,99,000/- on account of alleged cash component on sale of land bearing survey no. 361\". 2. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 25 Crores u/s.69 of the Act paid by the assessee as advance in cash towards the purchase of land located at Sarkhej without appreciating the seized material, supported by third-party confirmation and internal records, which clearly demonstrates the flow of funds and the financial arrangement undertaken by the assessee\" 3. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s. 69A of Rs. 4.15,93,940/- on account of alleged interest income received in cash 4. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 69A of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on account of alleged income received in cash for facilitation of AMC related work\" 5. The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/on substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal Ground No.-1: On-money on sale of land 29. Ground No. 1 pertains to addition of Rs. 19,61,99,000/- on account of alleged cash component on sale of land bearing survey No. 361. In the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 28 course of search, certain documents were seized from the residence of the assessee vide Annexure A-1 (Page No. 1 to 17) from which it transpired that the assessee had sold a land bearing survey No. 361 (Khata No. 1156) admeasuring 15,479 square metres, TPS No. 204, FP No. 247 admeasuring 9287 square metres along with his two brothers, to one Shri Sandip Narshibhai Patel vide sale deed dated 19.09.2019 for a sale consideration of Rs. 20 crores. Further in the course of search at the premises of M/s. Dharnidhar Developers certain mobile data was seized from Shri Alpesh Thakore. From the whatsapp chat data recovered from the mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakore, it was found that the rate for land bearing survey No. 361 was quoted at “71000”. This whatsapp chat communication was dated 03.05.2019 whereas the land was actually sold by the assessee and his brothers to Shri Sandip Narshibhai Patel vide agreement dated 19.09.2019. On the basis of this whatsapp chat communication, the AO had applied the rate of Rs. 71,000/- per square yards to work out the sale consideration of the land at Rs. 78,85,97,000/- . Since the documentation for sale of land was done at Rs. 20 crores, the AO treated the difference of Rs. 58,85,97,000/- as on-money received in cash in this transaction. As the assessee was 1/3rd owner of the property, an addition of Rs. 19,61,99,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee on account of on-money received on sale of land, which was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. 30. Shri Rignesh Das, the Ld. CIT-DR, submitted that the AO had worked out the sale consideration of land on the basis of digital evidence in respect of rate of same piece of land as found in the course of search. He explained that the whatsapp chat communication was between Shri Alpesh Thakore a key employee and shri Deepak Rambhai Mewada, co- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 29 owner of the land. He submitted that merely because the sale was made to another party, this does not reduce the rate of property as quoted in the whatsapp chat communication. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the addition was made on the basis of surrounding circumstances, the corroborative material found in the course of search and the preponderance of probabilities. 31. Per Contra, Shri Vijay Mehta, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the whatsapp chat communication was for quoting the rate to third party namely Shri Kushalbhai with whom the transaction never materialised. Further that the whatsapp chat communication was only a quotation which cannot be considered as final rate. According to the Ld. AR no evidence was found in the course of search to support the contention of the AO that the assessee had received any extra consideration over and above the amount as mentioned in the sale deed. There was no corroborative evidence to support the presumption of receipt of cash of Rs. 58.68 crores as additional sale consideration. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Anil Rambhai Mewada, a co-owner of the land, in IT(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2025 dated 29.07.2025. 32. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the impugned property being land at survey No. 361 owned by the assessee and his two brothers was sold to Shri Sandip Narshibhai Patel vide sale deed dated 19.09.2019 for a sale consideration of Rs. 20 crores. In the course of search no evidence of any additional amount received from Shri Sandip Narshibhai Patel towards the sale consideration of this land was found. The AO also did not make any enquiry with the buyer Sandip Narshibhai Patel to establish the payment Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 30 of any extra sale consideration, over and above Rs. 20 crores as per sale deed. The only basis of addition of Rs. 19,61,99,000/- in the hands of the assessee on account of the on-money receipt was the whatsapp communication between Sh. Alpesh Thakore and Shri Deepak Rambhai Mewada. This cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence for receipt of on-money by the assessee. It is found that this issue was adjudicated by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anil Rambhai Mewada (supra) and the finding given in the said order is reproduced below: “9. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has meticulously examined each and every aspect of the transaction and given a categorical finding as to why the addition of Rs.19,61,99,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash received could not have been made. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). One of the contentions of the Revenue is that when the rate for the land was quoted at Rs.71,000/- in the WhatsApp chat, the property could not have been sold at a much lower rate. However, the Revenue has been unable to bring on record any evidence to substantiate the rate of Rs.71,000/- for this sale transaction. The WhatsApp chat was not with the buyer of the land but with a third person and the rate quoted therein can’t be considered as conclusive evidence for the rate. Merely because certain rate was quoted to a prospective buyer, the said rate can’t be considered as final rate for the sale transaction with another person. The Revenue has also not brought on record any evidence that any other property in the same locality was sold at the rate of Rs.71,000/- or at a comparable rate. The principle of surrounding circumstances and preponderance of probabilities required any other instance of actual sale transaction at a comparable rate. In the absence of any such evidence, the rate of Rs.71,000/- as appearing in WhatsApp chat can’t be considered as sacrosanct. Neither the matter was referred by the AO to the DVO to find out the fair market value of the property. Further, if the property was sold at a rate higher than as appearing in the sale deed, then certain evidence for receipt of extra consideration should have been found in the course of search. As already mentioned earlier, no evidence of receipt of any on-money in respect of the sale consideration of the land, was found from the assessee or from the other co- owners, in the course of search. If the Revenue wanted to tax the on-money Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 31 consideration of the sale transaction, the burden was squarely on the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee had received on-money in this transaction. The buyer of the property had also not admitted having made any on-money payment in this transaction. In the absence of any such evidence, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer is based purely on suspicion and assumption of facts, which could not have been sustained. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the addition of Rs.19,61,99,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash received on sale of land, is upheld and the grounds taken by the Revenue are rejected.” 33. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal on this issue in the case of the co-owner, the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 19,61,99,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash received on sale of land, is upheld. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No.-2 & 3: Advance for purchase of land 34. The next two grounds taken by the Revenue are interconnected and are being adjudicated together. In the course of search certain digital data was seized from the mobile of the assessee. Page No. 1 of Annexure – W contained details of payment of Rs. 25 crores in 4 instalments and working of interest thereon at the rate of 18% (reproduced at page 37 of the assessment order). Another evidence/digital data seized from the mobile of the assessee was document related to purchase of land in survey No. 467/1, 467/2, 468/1, 468/2, 468/3 located at Sarkhej village and owned by Hitendra Kumar Patel and others. A MoU dated 20.01.2018 (page 182 to 185) was also seized, as per which an amount of Rs. 5 crores was paid by the assessee to the owners of the land, as advance. However, due to certain technical issue over the land, the MoU dated 20.01.2018 was cancelled vide cancellation deed 30.01.2018. The Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 32 had interlinked these two evidences and concluded that the assessee had paid advance of Rs. 25 crores for purchase of this land. However, as the original MoU was cancelled the advance of Rs. 25 crores was liable to be returned to the assessee along with interest of 18% as per working in seized document page-1 of Annexure-W. Another digital image was seized from the mobile of one Shri Suresh Thakkar (page No. 145 of Annexure A-2) wherein the figure of Rs.25 crores and the working of interest thereon was appearing and found tallying with the document seized from the assessee. Further, Shri Suresh Thakkar had given a statement that the deal for sale of land was facilitated through him for total sale consideration of Rs. 163 crores and token amount of Rs. 5 crores in cash was paid by the buyer. Subsequently, after cancellation of the deal the said land was sold to Gala Group, HN Safal Group and Goyal Group. Shri Thakkar had also stated that the assessee had made total payment of Rs.25 crores towards the deal and as the deal was cancelled, he was asking for refund of this amount along with interest. On the basis of these evidences, the AO had made addition of Rs. 25 crores on account of advance payment made in cash towards purchase of land bearing survey No. 467/1, 467/2, 468/1, 468/2, 468/3. Further, separate addition of interest of Rs.4,15,93,940/- at the rate of 18% on the advance of Rs. 25 crores, as appearing in the seized document, was also made. Both the additions were, however, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 35. Shri Rignesh Das, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that these additions were made on the basis of seized documents as well as the explanation of the assessee and Shri Suresh Thakkar from whose possession the documents were seized. He submitted that the advance payment and the working of interest as found from the mobile of the assessee was exactly Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 33 matching with the document as recovered from Sh. Suresh Thakkar. Merely because the deal was cancelled, this does not invalidate the advance of Rs. 25 crores which was being demanded back by the assessee along with interest of 18%. Considering the evidences as found in the course of search, the AO had rightly made the addition for the advance payment of Rs.25 crores as well as for the interest of Rs. 4,15,93,940/- as appearing in the seized documents. 36. Per contra, Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR submitted that as per MoU dated 20.01.2018, the assessee was required to pay advance of Rs. 5 crores only, which was also not paid by him. Further, this MoU was cancelled within 10 days on 30.01.2018. The Ld. AR submitted that when the agreement for purchase of land was cancelled, there was no question of making payment of Rs. 25 crores as advance and that too in the subsequent year (i.e. in Financial Year 2019-20). He further submitted that the seized evidence did not contain any name, signature, reference to any land deal, survey no. and, therefore, the AO was not correct in interlinking these evidences with the proposed land transaction. The Ld. AR contended that there was no reference of any advance payment of Rs. 25 crores in the MoU and payment of interest thereon at 18%. The Ld. AR explained that after the cancellation of the MoU, the land owners had sold the said property to third parties namely Gala Group, HN Safal Group and Goyal Group for a consideration of Rs.49 crores only. Further that the AO had referred the sale transaction to the DVO to find out the fair market value of the property, which was worked out at Rs. 54.37 crores only by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that the evidences found in the course of search and the alleged advance of Rs. 25 crores by Shri Dhiren Bharwad was adjudicated by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 34 GSG Abode LLP in IT(SS)A No. 21/Ahd/2024 and others dated 18.09.2025. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 37. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As per the seized document found from the assessee, working of interest @ 18% was made on Rs. 15 crores from 01.04.2019, on Rs. 2 crores from 25.04.2019, on Rs. 3 crores from 02.05.2019 and on Rs. 5 crores from 01.04.2019, all till 30.11.2019. The AO has considered the date of working of interest as the date of payment of the 4 instalments totalling Rs. 25 crores. Further this advance payment of Rs. 25 crores was interlinked with proposed purchase of land in survey No. 467 and 468. The land was agreed to be purchased vide MoU dated 20.01.2018, which was cancelled within a period of 10 days on 30.01.2018. According to the assessee an advance of Rs. 5 crores was agreed as per MoU, which also was not paid. When the MoU for purchase of land was cancelled on 30.01.2018, there could not have been any subsequent payment of advance made by the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the AO that the assessee had made advance payment of Rs.25 crores in the next financial year on the different dates, is found to be patently wrong. As per MoU, the assessee had only proposed to pay Rs. 5 crores, which also was not paid due to cancellation of the MoU on 30.01.2018. Further, when the land was already sold by the owners to GSG Abode LLP vide agreement dated 30.10.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 49 crores, there was no question of any advance payment by the assessee, subsequent to the sale of land to a third party. The AO had also relied upon the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar which is found to be self- contradictory. Shri Thakkar had stated that the assessee had made token advance payment of Rs. 5 crores in cash and at the same time also stated Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 35 that the figure of Rs. 25 crores as appearing in the seized document also represented advance for the same deal of land. This contradiction in the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar was not clarified. The AO also made enquiry from the land owners about the amount of advance received by them and they had denied having received any advance from the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any rational for addition of Rs. 25 crores on account of advance for land and that too in the current assessment year, after the sale of the property to a third party. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the facts of the case in great detail and a reasoned finding was given by him, which is reproduced below: 9.11 On perusal of the assessment order and submission furnished by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant, along with Shri Sanjaykumar Kantilal Savalıya and Shri Hitendrakumar Bhailabhai Patel, had signed an unregistered MOU dated 20.01.2018 for the purchase of lands bearing Survey Nos. 467/1, 467/2, 468/1, 468/2, and 468/3. As per the terms, amount of Rs 5 crores was paid upfront, with the remaining sum to be paid in phased instalments Due to several reasons, the MOU was mutually cancelled by a registered Deed of Cancellation dated 30.01.2018 ie within 10 days of entering into such MOU The same parcel of land was ultimately sold by the original owners to GSG Abode LLP via a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 49 crores. The appellant had no involvement in the final sale. It is observed that AO has not brought any evidence which suggest that the appellant has infact made payment of Rs 5 crore towards purchase of land and even if it is held that appellant has made such payment, made falls in AY 2018-19 and not in current year. 9.12 It is undisputed fact that MoU entered into by appellant with original sellers was cancelled in AY 2018-19 and said land was subsequent sold to GSG Abode LLP by original sellers on 30.10.2018. The loose material relied upon by AO for making addition of Rs 25 crore and interest as mentioned therein pertains to current year whereas MoU entered into by appellant was already cancelled in AY 2018-19 and even said land was sold by sellers to third party in AY 2019-20 hence notings reflecting period on or after 01/04/2019 does not pertain to appellant. When appellant is nor party to such land deal, how notings subsequent to cancellation of land deal pertain to appellant is not established by the AO. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 36 9.13 It is observed that the documents in question (Pages 1 & 145) are inherently vague and lack the fundamental details required to substantiate a financial transaction. The pages contain interest calculations on a principal of Rs. 25.00.00.000/- at 18% However, they are critically devoid of essential information such as the names of the lender and borrower, the specific purpose of the transaction, and details of the underlying asset (eg, land survey numbers) The use of an unexplained abbreviation HN no where prove that appellant is involved in such a transacation. The documents are unsigned, unverified, and even there is no corroborating statement which can prove that appellant has received such amount. 9.14 It is observed that the notings on the seized pages contain numerous internal contradictions that undermine their credibility as a record of a genuine transaction: An interest figure of Rs. 2.84 crores is noted but is not added to the principal Standard accounting practice dictates that accrued interest receivable would increase the total amount due A subsequent calculation shows interest of Rs 51.87 362/-being subtracted from a principal of Rs. 4.27 59,422/- This is financially incongruous: interest payable by a debtor is an expense and interest receivable by a creditor is income and in neither standard scenario is it subtracted from the principal liability in this manner it is observed that if notings in seized document is held to be pertaining to appellant, it would give contrast observation as on one hand, they are being interpreted to suggest the appellant advanced Rs. 25 crores and earned interest. On the other hand the same document shows a net amount of 24.27.59,422/- as payable by the appellant to the seller It defies commercial logic for a lender who has already advanced a large sum to end up owing a significant amount back to the borrower in the same transaction, especially after supposedly receiving interest. This contradiction along with fact that no name appears in such material establishes that such notings do not pertain to appellant. 9.15 During the course of appellate hearing, appellant drawn attention that in the seized material, an interest of Rs 51.87.362/- is calculated for the period 29.06.2019 to 29.02 2020 on an amount that is shown to be payable only from 01.03.2020. Calculating interest for a period before the principal amount becomes due is illogical and contrary to any genuine financial arrangement it is observed that the appellant has provided a registered Deed of Cancellation for MoU The AO has provided no evidence to rebut its validity or to prove that the seized papers pertain to this cancelled transaction. The attempt to link the seized pages to the cancelled MOU is factually untenable. The MOU value was different as it did not mention a Rs. 25 crore cash payment. During the course of search carried out at the premise of appellant no document is found which can prove that appellant has made on money payment to sellers and when AO has not made addition of Rs 25 crore being Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 37 unaccounted payment to sellers in earlier years there is no question of making addition of Rs 25 crore being receipt from sellers of land in current year. It is further observed that the MOU had no clause for an 18% interest rate. The interest calculations on the seized pages begin from 01.04 2019, which is more than a year after the MOU was officially cancelled It is inconceivable that interest would begin to accrue on a deal long after its formal termination. 9.16 While Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows for a presumption that seized documents belong to the person from whom they were seized, this is a rebuttable presumption. The appellant has successfully rebutted this presumption by highlighting the aforementioned inconsistencies, denying ownership and providing a registered Deed of Cancellation for the only known land transaction. The onus. therefore, shifted back to the AO to provide independent, corroborative evidence which has not been done. 9.17 On the same issue in the cases of land owners/sellers ie. Sanjaykumar Kanlilal Savaliya and Others for A.Y. 2019-20, the Id. CIT(A)-11, had passed appellate order dated 29.01.2024 holding that the primary ground for deleting the addition was the lack of evidentiary value and relevance of the unsigned unregistered, and unnotarized MOU dated 20.01 2018, which was recovered during the search. The CIT(A) observed that the said MOU was not executed by all co-owners and had no legal sanctity, as also admitted by the AO himself in the assessment order. The land deal referenced in the MOU was cancelled on 30.01.2018, a fact confirmed by Shri Dhiren Bharwad in his statement, and the land was ultimately sold to M/s GSG Abode LLP on 30.10.2018 for Rs. 49 crores, with no mention of the prior deal or any involvement of Shri Bharwad The CIT(A) noted that this cancellation predated the date of search on 15.10.2019 and rendered the MOU irrelevant for any assessment. Moreover, statements recorded from multiple parties involved in the transaction including co-owners representatives of the buyer, and alleged intermediaries unanimously denied the existence of any on- money or unaccounted payments. Significantly the AO admitted that there was no concrete evidence on record to establish the alleged payment of Rs. 5 crores as token money Despite this, the AO proceeded with the addition solely based on the uncorroborated MOU, without any direct or supporting evidence linking the appellants to the alleged receipt or retention of cash. The CIT(A) thus concluded that the foundation of the addition was factually and legally unsustainable especially considering the cancellation of the original deal, the absence of any connection between the MOU and the final purchaser, and the lack of any credible evidence of unaccounted cash transactions. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 38 9.18 Further, on the same issue in the cases of purchaser ie GSG Abode LLP for A.Y. 2020-21 the Id. CIT(A)-11 had granted relief to GSG Abode LLP by deleting the addition made on account of alleged on-money payments and interest expenses purportedly inferred from digital data seized during a search conducted at the premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar The primary basis for deletion was the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged unaccounted transactions. The seized digital document specifically page no. 145 of Annexure A/2 did not mention the name of the appellant, the landowners, or Shri Dhiren Bharwad, thereby rendering the document unconnected to the assessee. Moreover, the loose paper notings included dates subsequent to the search date of 15.10.2019, such as 01.12.2019 and 01.03 2020 indicating that these were not contemporaneous records of actual transactions The CIT(A) further noted that when the Assessing Officer himself acknowledged discrepancies within the notings, including dates and figures, reliance on such a document as a whole becomes untenable Importantly. the appellant had acquired the land on 31 10 2019, and it was illogical to presume that any payment of Rs. 25 crores would have been made to a third party, ie, Shri Dhiren Bharwad, after execution of the final sale deed. The theory advanced by the AO that the landowners had retained Rs. 25 crores paid earlier by Shri Bharwad and subsequently returned the same with interest on behalf of the appellant was found to be purely speculative and lacking evidentiary backing The AO failed to bring on record any documentation or statement from Shn Dhiren Bharwad or the landowners establishing such a transaction. Furthermore, while a prior MoU indicating a token payment of Rs. 5 crores were found it was conclusively cancelled within 10 days. and this cancellation was not rebutted by the AO. The fact that the AO, in earlier assessment orders, accepted Rs. 5 crores as the unaccounted consideration further weakened the allegation of Rs 25 crores on-money Statements recorded from all concerned parties including sellers, purchasers, and intermediaries categorically denied any unaccounted payment or consideration beyond the registered sale price. Even the statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar u/s 131 of the Act, as well as his subsequent affidavit, confirmed that the appellant did not make any such on-money payment. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the AO was based entirely on presumptions and conjectures. devoid of any direct or reliable evidence, and therefore the same was liable to be deleted. 9.19 Considering the above facts, it is observed that entire addition made by AO u/s 69 of the Act for Rs 25,00,00,000/- and unexplained interest receipts u/s 69A of the Act for Rs 4. 15.93.940/- by AO is on the basis of misinterpreted digital evidence and without any corroborative evidence which does not represent actual transactions. Thus entire addition made by the AQ for Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 39 Rs 25.00.00.000/- and Rs.4. 15,93 940/- is deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 4 and 5 are allowed 38. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It is also seen from the seized document that the working of interest appearing therein was for the period after the date of search, which means that no payment had exchanged hands as on the date of search. The AO had summoned the sellers and examined them on oath and they had categorically denied receipt of any advance from the assessee. Further, when the factum of advance of Rs. 25 crores by the assessee itself was not established, there was no question of any interest income being earned thereon. The issue of cash payment of Rs.25 crores by the assessee was also examined by the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of appeal filed by GSG Abode LLP, the ultimate purchaser of the land. The finding given by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 21/Ahd/2024 dated 18.09.2025 is found to be as under: 10.4 “So far as the presumption of the AO that an advance of Rs. 25 Crores was paid by Shri Dhiren Bharwad and not of Rs. 5 Crores to the land owners, is concerned, in our view, if there had been any cash payment of Rs 25 crores, then the said fact might have been mentioned in the said MOU itself The said MOU was not a public document, rather it was allegedly a private document, wherein, as per the AO the actual sale price was mentioned. If that was so, then under the circumstances, there was no reason as to why the factum of cash payment of Rs 25 crores would not be mentioned in the said document. Moreover, when the said document was cancelled within 10 days of its execution, it was obvious that all the issues relating to the pending dues/payments between the parties would have been settled It would not be perceivable even to a layman as to why at the time of cancellation of the MOU, the proposed purchaser Shri Dhiren Bharwad would not demand for the refund of any amount paid by him as token money. Moreover, the subsequent sale-deed was executed on 30/10/2018. Even at the time of execution of subsequent sale-deed, the payment due towards any of the parties would have Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 40 been squared off. There is no answer to the question as to why Shri Dhiren Bharwad would not demand for the refund of the amount paid by him as advance money to the sellers, either at the time of cancellation of earlier MOU or at the time when the transfer/sale of the land was effected in the name of GSG Abode LLP It is highly improbable that the alleged amount of Rs 25 crores was outstanding of Shri Dhiren Bharwad towards GSG Abode LLP, which was allegedly paid by him to the sellers at the time of execution of MOU dated 20/01/2018. 10.5 It has been mentioned in the cancellation deed that, in fact, the said sum of Rs.5 crores was not paid by Shri Dhiren Bharwad at the time of execution of the agreement. Admittedly, the Ld. AO has not disputed the cancellation deed. Hence, once the cancellation deed was not disputed, therefore the mention that even Rs.5 crores as token money was not received by the sellers has become relevant and to be admitted as correct as the said cancellation deed/document is to be read in full. The AO cannot discard the part of the documents which supports the contentions of the assessee and demolish the case of the revenue.” 39. In view of the above facts and findings, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on these issues. The order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.25 crores on account of advance payment made in cash towards purchase of land as well as the interest of Rs.4,15,93,940/- @ 18% on this advance, both are upheld. The grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. Ground No.-4: Facilitation income 40. Ground No. 4 pertains to addition of Rs. 4 crores on account of alleged income received in cash for facilitation of AMC related work. In the course of search an MoU between Utpalbhai Bhogilal Gajjar & others and the assessee, in respect of land bearing FP No. 378/2 of Makarba village, was extracted from mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakore. As per the MoU the assessee was required to get FP and CCP opinion from AMC authorities and facilitate handing of physical possession of the land to the buyer. For Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 41 this work the assessee was to receive total remuneration of Rs. 7.50 crores. As per MoU an amount of Rs. 4 crores was already paid on 05.10.2019 and the balance amount of Rs. 3.50 crores was to be paid after completion of work. Before the AO, the assessee had explained that the deal was cancelled and the assessee did not receive any remuneration in this regard. The AO on the basis of MoU had made addition of Rs.4 crores which was already received by the assessee on 05.10.2019. The Ld. CIT(A) had, however, deleted this addition. 41. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that this addition was made on the basis of the payment as already recorded in the MoU seized in the course of search from the mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakore, a key employee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition. 42. Per Contra, Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that no such document was found from the assessee in the course of search. Further that the MoU was not signed by the assessee and no payment of Rs.4 crores was received by the assessee on 05.10.2019 as mentioned in the MoU. The Ld. AR submitted that Shir Utpalbhai Bhogilal Gajjar, the other party to the MoU also did not confirm any payment of Rs.4 crores being made to the assessee. He, therefore, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 43. We have considered the rival submissions. The MoU on the basis of which the addition of Rs. 4 crores has been made, was not found from the assessee in the course of search. The copy of MoU found from the mobile of Shri Alpesh Thakore has been reproduced in the assessment order. It is found that the MoU was not signed by any of the parties. Under the circumstances, the contents of the MoU was required to be proved Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 42 with independent evidences. The MoU does refer to amount of Rs. 4 crores payable to the assessee as on 05.10.2019. However, no details of payment is appearing therein. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to establish that the assessee had received this payment of Rs. 4 crores on 05.10.2019 or thereafter. No enquiry was carried out by the AO with Shri Utpalbhai Gajjar or other parties as mentioned in the MoU, regarding payment of Rs. 4 crores made by them to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that no addition could have been made only on the basis of unsigned, undated draft MoU. The unsigned MoU was only a draft document and the AO has been unable to substantiate the proposed payment recorded therein with any independent and corroborative evidence. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. Accordingly, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 114/Ahd/2025 (AY 2020-21) 45. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The Ld.CIT ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the order and making the additions based on use of Electronic Evidence without brining on record mandatory certificate required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act dated 27.07.2021 as the approval granted/issued under section 153D of the Act dated 13.07.2021 is invalid and bad in law and also on the ground that the same does not contain DIN. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 43 4. The Ld. CIT has erred in confirming addition alleging that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 61,35,000/- in cash on loans taken which is liable to be taxed u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT has erred in confirming addition alleging that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 1,84,089/- in cash on loans taken which is liable to be taxed u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 46. In the course of hearing Shri Vijay Mehta, the Ld. A.R of the assessee did not press ground No. 1, 2 and 3. Hence, these grounds are dismissed. Further, the ground No. 5 was also not pressed considering the smallness of the amount involved. Accordingly, the ground no. 5 as taken by the assessee, is also dismissed. Ground No.-4: Interest on loan 47. This leaves us only with ground No. 4 regarding addition of Rs.61,35,000/- on account of interest on loan. In the course of search at the office of M/s Dharnidhar Developers an image (page no.-9) was retrieved from the mobile phone of an employee namely Sh. Chirag Kheradia. The entries appearing in this page were as under: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 44 The assessee had stated that this image was sent by one Shri Kiritbhai Sukhadi to Sh. Chirag Kheradia. He had explained that while the entries on the right hand side were working of interest on loan taken from Shri Kiritbhai Sukhadi which was paid through cheque, the entries on the left hand side were only offer for new loan at interest rate of 1.25% and 1.5% per month. It was further submitted that the loan at such higher interest rate was not obtained and, therefore, no interest of Rs. 61,35,000/- as worked out on this page was paid. Regarding the interest of Rs.72,03,945/- appearing on the right-hand side, the same was duly admitted to be paid through cheque and accounted for in the books of accounts. The AO, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 61,35,000/- being interest paid in cash, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 45 48. Shri Vijay Mehta, the Ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that the sum of Rs. 61,35,000/- was only working of interest on the proposal of new loan from Kiritbhai. He explained that the interest being charged was too high and, therefore, the loan was neither taken nor the interest as worked out in this seized document, was paid. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO was not correct in making the addition, disregarding the explanation of the assessee. He further submitted that no enquiry was conducted by the AO to establish that the assessee had actually made payment of interest of Rs. 61,35,000/- as appearing in this document and neither any corroborative evidence in this regard was brought on record. 49. Per contra Shri Rignesh Das, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the entries appearing in this seized document was duly owned-up and explained by the assessee. He further submitted that since part of the entry in the seized document in respect of interest payment of Rs. 72,03,945/- was duly accounted for in the books of accounts, the other part also has to be taken as correct. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of lower authorities on this issue. 50. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. So far as the amount of Rs. 61,35,000/- is concerned, the name of the assessee is duly appearing in the seized document and the working of this interest is also self-evident. While the interest of Rs. 18,75,000/- and Rs.36,00,000/- is for a period of 90 days, the working of Rs. 6,60,000/- is only for a period of 66 days with effect from 25.07.2019. Thus, the total interest of Rs. 61,35,000/- was worked out for the period from 01.07.2019 to 30.09.2019. On the other hand, the working of interest of Rs. 72,03,945/- appearing in the right-hand column, is not self-explicit from the seized document. Still, the assessee had admitted before the AO that the interest of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 46 72,03,945/- was the amount of interest paid to different concerns to Sutharia family for the period July 2019 to September 2019 on unsecured loan taken from them. The complete details of loan taken and the working of this interest was also furnished. It was further submitted that the interest of Rs.72,03,945/- was paid to Sutharia family by cheque, after deduction of TDS, and was duly reflected in the books of accounts. Considering the explanation regarding interest of Rs.72,03,945/- as given by the assessee, this document could not have been treated as a dumb document. It is found that this figure of Rs.72,03,945/- was added to the working of interest of Rs. 61,35,000/- on the left-hand side of the document and thus total interest of Rs.1,33,38,945/- was worked out. If the figure of Rs.61,35,000/- represented interest on the proposed loan and was not actual payment, then it was not required to be added to the interest of Rs. 72,03,945/- paid through cheque. Since the assessee had worked out the total interest of Rs. 1,33,38,945/- in this document, it is evident that this was actual liability of interest payment. Further, since interest of only Rs.72,03,945/- was paid through cheque and accounted for in the books of account, the AO had rightly concluded that the sum of Rs. 61,35,000/- represented interest paid in cash. 51. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that once certain entries in the seized document are found corroborated by the bank account entries, the remaining entries for which assessee had failed to explain the source of transaction, was unaccounted. The finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below: 12.4 “On perusal of the assessment order and the submissions furnished by the appellant, it is observed that the addition of Rs. 61.35 lakh made by the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 47 Assessing Officer on account of unexplained interest paid in cash is based on seized evidence found during the course of search. The evidence in the form of an image document retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Chirag Kheradia, an employee associated with the appellant's firm, M/s Dharnidhar Developer contains a tabulated computation of interest payable on various amounts for specific durations aggregating to Rs. 1,33,38,945/-, and explicitly links the appellant by naming him (\"Dhiren\") in the document. Of particular significance is the right-hand column of the document, which contains figures aggregating to Rs 72,03,945/ The appellant has admitted that this amount represents interest paid to the Sukhadia family through banking channels. However, the appellant's claim that the image merely reflected a loan proposal and not an actual transaction is not tenable. In his post search submissions, the appellant himself acknowlk dged that the right-hand side of the table represented interest already paid to the S ikhadia family and that he had borrowed Rs. 32.05 crore from them. His further assertion that the left-hand side figures related to a proposed loan that was ultimately not accepted due to a higher interest rate (1.25%-1.5% per month) is also not found to be acceptable, as no supporting documentary evidence such as rejection letters, correspondence, or records of negotiation has been furnished. The explanation thus appears to be self serving and an afterthought, especially in light of the working of the interest computation in the seized document. 12.5 The appellant has denied having made any interest, payment in cash amounting to Rs 61 35,000/- as noted in the seized document However this contention cannot be accepted The seized page which contains both cash and cheque entries, is either entirely true or entirely false it cannot be selectively true. The appellant has not denied that the interest figures shown in the right- hand column have been duly accounted for in the books of accounts. It is also pertinent to note that the document, which records both cash and cheque transactions in a consistent format constitutes a complete piece of primary evidence. Once it is established that the cheque entries have actually taken place in the exact manner as recorded, the existence and authenticity of the corresponding cash entries cannot be disregarded. It is a settled principle that entries in a seized or impounded document cannot be partly accepted and partly rejected Since the interest amount of Rs 72.03.945/- mentioned on the right side of the seized document has been accepted by the appellant as having been paid through banking channels towards loan interest, there is no justifiable reason to accept the appellant's plea that the same seized data, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos. 117, 114, 123 & 124/Ahd/2025 Dhiren Rambhai Bharwad Vs ACIT, AY- 2019-20 & 2020-21 48 indicating additional interest payment of Rs. 61.35,000/- also recorded on the right side of the column is incorrect.” 52. The ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon certain judicial decisions and held that once certain entries in the seized documents are corroborated by the bank account entries, the remaining entries also has to be taken as correct. Considering the fact that total interest of Rs. 1,33,38,945/- was worked out in the seized document and the sum of Rs. 72,03,945/- only was found accounted in the books of accounts of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the addition for balance amount of Rs. 61,35,000/- being interest payment in cash. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the ground taken by the assessee is dimissed. 53. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 25/02/2026 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KA MBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 25th February, 2026 Neelesh Kumar True Copy आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u0011ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0017 / The Appellant 2. \u0018\u0019थ\u0017 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय \u0018ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "