KUNAL ASHOK JAIN ,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7115/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kunal Ashok Jain, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai. The additions were based on a search and seizure operation conducted on the Rubberwala Group, where it was alleged that the assessee paid 'on-money' for the purchase of shops in the 'Platinum Mall'. The Tribunal examined the reliance on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, a key employee of the Rubberwala Group, and an Excel sheet found during the search. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payments was found, and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity for cross-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847490 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pravin K Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Akhraj P Chopra vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Lilaram vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Bhavana V Jain vs ACIT Central Circle 4(2), Bharat Solanki vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Manish K Seksaria vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mishra Ganesha Ram vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Jayantilal Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Kulsum Aaqib Memon vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Ganpat H Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Dhiraj Solanki vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Suresh Sonaji Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Nikhil Vinod Agarwal vs DCIT, Heena Dashrath Jhanglani vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination; Procedural lapse
• Section: 132; 69; 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 7115/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 & ITA No. 7116/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kunal Ashok Jain 1901-02 Padmavati Heights, Pathe Bapurao road, Grant road Mumbai, Grant Road S.O., Mumbai- 400007, Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai Kautilya Bhawan, C41-43, Avenue 3, near Videsh Bhavan, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 PAN NO. AWTPJ 6143 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Mr. Ritesh Misra, CIT. DR Date of Hearing : 09/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 26/03/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax- 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)] for assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income carried out in the case of M/s. Rubberwala Limited (RHIL), its promoter and director key employee of Rubberwala group , Shri. Imran Ansari, who was handling sale and registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of M/s. RHIL. M/s. RHIL constructe in which shops were sold to various customers including the assessee. During the course of search, certain digital data in the form of an Excel sheet was found from the possession of a key employee, Shri Imran Ansari, who shops in “Platinum Mall” comprised both cheque and cash components, out of which by Shri Tabrez Shaikh the Assessing officer of all those cu the assessee. 3. The assessee had filed assessment year 2019 at Rs. 8,71,570/- and for original return on 9,18,216/-. In view of the information found in the course of search action u/s 153C of the Act said information contained ITA No. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961(n in short the Act) was carried out in the case of M/s. Rubberwala Housing Infrastructure Limited (RHIL), its promoter and director- Shri Tabrez Shaikh and a key employee of Rubberwala group , Shri. Imran Ansari, who was handling sale and registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of M/s. RHIL. M/s. RHIL constructed a mall namely “Platinum Mall” in which shops were sold to various customers including the During the course of search, certain digital data in the form of an Excel sheet was found from the possession of a key employee, Shri Imran Ansari, who stated that sale consideration of shops in “Platinum Mall” comprised both cheque and cash out of which cash component was used to be by Shri Tabrez Shaikh. The relevant information was forwarded to ssessing officer of all those customers of the shop including The assessee had filed original return of the income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 27.07.2019 declaring and for assessment year 2020 original return on 02.01.2025 declaring total income of Rs. view of the information pertaining in the course of search action on Rubberwala group was issued for A.Y. 2019-20 and 2020 contained that the assessee had purchased Kunal Ashok Jain 2 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 Briefly stated facts of the case are that a search and seizure Tax Act, 1961(n in short the Act) was Housing Infrastructure Shri Tabrez Shaikh and a key employee of Rubberwala group , Shri. Imran Ansari, who was handling sale and registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of d a mall namely “Platinum Mall” in which shops were sold to various customers including the During the course of search, certain digital data in the form of an Excel sheet was found from the possession of a key stated that sale consideration of shops in “Platinum Mall” comprised both cheque and cash used to be decided formation was forwarded to stomers of the shop including return of the income for the 20 on 27.07.2019 declaring total income of assessment year 2020-21 filed the 02.01.2025 declaring total income of Rs. pertaining to the assessee wala group, notice 20 and 2020-21. The that the assessee had purchased shop Printed from counselvise.com in “Platinum Mall” building, G Rs. 19,86,900/- was paid which comprise of 12,86,900/- in A.Y. 2020 on such material i.e. the statement of Shri. Imran Ansari and the excel sheet details, it was alleged that the assessee had paid cash “on-money” of ₹19,86,900/ spread across two categorically denied having made any such cash payment. The Assessing Officer, relying primarily on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the Excel sheet, made additions of 2019–20 and ₹12,86,9 upheld the additions. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the of raising grounds as 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on submitted that addition made in the case of other customers of the “Platinum Mall” on the basis of statement Shri. Imran Ansari and the excel sheet found fr bench of the Tribunal in the series of decisions. The ld. counsel filed a list of such decision before ITA No. in “Platinum Mall” building, Girgaon Mumbai and the was paid in cash on purchase of the said shop of Rs. 7,00,000/- in A.Y. 2019 in A.Y. 2020-21 aggregating to Rs. 19,86,900/ on such material i.e. the statement of Shri. Imran Ansari and the excel sheet details, it was alleged that the assessee had paid cash 19,86,900/- in connection with purchase of a shop, spread across two assessment years. The assessee, however, categorically denied having made any such cash payment. The Assessing Officer, relying primarily on the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the Excel sheet, made additions of ₹7,00,000/ 12,86,900/- for A.Y. 2020–21. The learned CIT(A) . the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal of raising grounds as reproduce above. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that addition made in the case of other customers of the “Platinum Mall” on the basis of statement Shri. Imran Ansari and the excel sheet found from him has been deleted by the C bench of the Tribunal in the series of decisions. The ld. counsel filed a list of such decision before us as under: Kunal Ashok Jain 3 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 n Mumbai and the amount of of the said shop in A.Y. 2019-20 and Rs. aggregating to Rs. 19,86,900/-. Based on such material i.e. the statement of Shri. Imran Ansari and the excel sheet details, it was alleged that the assessee had paid cash in connection with purchase of a shop, assessment years. The assessee, however, categorically denied having made any such cash payment. The Assessing Officer, relying primarily on the statement of Shri Imran 7,00,000/- for A.Y. 21. The learned CIT(A) Tribunal by way We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the record. Before us ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that addition made in the case of other customers of the “Platinum Mall” on the basis of statement Shri. Imran Ansari and om him has been deleted by the Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the series of decisions. The ld. counsel filed Printed from counselvise.com (i) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in case of Pravin K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742 4744/MUM/2025 order pro (AY 2017-18, 2018 (ii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"C\" bench in case of Akhraj P Chopra VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5553 5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5554-5557/MUM/2025 order p November 2025 (AY 2019 (iii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (iv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (v) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Manish K Seksaria VS DCIT 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (vi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Mishra Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & 5556/MUM/2025 order pronounc (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020 ITA No. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in case of Pravin K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742 4744/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 15th October 2025 18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"C\" bench in case of Akhraj P Chopra VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5553 5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), 5557/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th November 2025 (AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-2021) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Manish K Seksaria VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5499 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Mishra Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & 5556/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 20 & AY 2020-21) Kunal Ashok Jain 4 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in case of Pravin K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4742- nounced on 15th October 2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"C\" bench in case of Akhraj P Chopra VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5553- 5555/MUM/2025 AND Lilaram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ronounced on 10th Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavana V Jain VS ACIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6363- 6365/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 10th December 2025 Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6523- 6525/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Manish K Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5499- 5501/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 23th December 2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Mishra Ganesha Ram VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5552 & ed on 23th December 2025 Printed from counselvise.com (vii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Manish Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & 6568/MUM/2025 (AY 2017 Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), IT 5489/MUM/2025 (AY 2018 Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017 2019-20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025 (viii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in ca K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (ix) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1), ΓΓΑ Νο 5831 & 5832/MUM/2025 order (AY 2017-18, 2018 (x) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavesh H Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460 7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (xi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bipin F Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 ITA No. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Manish Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & 6568/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019 Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), IT 5489/MUM/2025 (AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20) AND Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017 20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in ca K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 18, 2018-19) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1), ΓΓΑ Νο 5831 & /2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 18, 2018-19) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavesh H Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460 7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bipin F Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kunal Ashok Jain 5 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Manish Mali VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6571, 6569 & 19 & 2019-20) AND Darpan H Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5488- 20) AND Dinesh Megharam Choudhary VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6480, 6479 & 6478/MUM/2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 20) order pronounced on 24th December 2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"A\" bench in case of Arvind K Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bharat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(1), ΓΓΑ Νο 5831 & pronounced on 19th January 2026 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bhavesh H Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7460- 7462/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 20th January 2026 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"B\" bench in case of Bipin F Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7021, 7023 & 7022/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 19th January 2026 Printed from counselvise.com (xii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Jayantilal Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5682 5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (xiii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Kulsum Aaqib Memon VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6450/MUM/2025 order (AY 2021-22) (xiv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Ganpat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5827 5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (xv) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7199-7201/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 (AY 2017-18, 2018 (xvi) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Veena Hiralal Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5492 & 5493/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th February 2026 (AY 2018-19 & AY 2019 (xvii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Dhiraj Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6526/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 04th February 2026 (AY 2019 (xviii) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Suresh Sonaji Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 8859 & ITA No. Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Jayantilal Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5682 5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Kulsum Aaqib Memon VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6450/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th January 2026 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Ganpat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5827 5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7201/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Veena iralal Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5492 & 5493/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th February 2026 19 & AY 2019-20) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Dhiraj Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6526/MUM/2025 onounced on 04th February 2026 (AY 2019 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Suresh Sonaji Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 8859 & Kunal Ashok Jain 6 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Jayantilal Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5682- 5684/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 30th December 2025 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"E\" bench in case of Kulsum Aaqib Memon VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No pronounced on 06th January 2026 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Ganpat H Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5827- 5830/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 2026 ble ITAT Mumbai \"G\" bench in case of Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 7201/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 22th January 21) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"F\" bench in case of Veena iralal Mehta VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 5492 & 5493/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 06th February 2026 Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Dhiraj Solanki VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 6526/MUM/2025 onounced on 04th February 2026 (AY 2019-20) Before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai \"D\" bench in case of Suresh Sonaji Purohit VS DCIT Central Circle 4(2), ITA No 8859 & Printed from counselvise.com 8860/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 09th February 2026 (AY 2019-20) 6. The Relevant observation in the case of Shri Arvi 4746/M/2025 is reproduced as under “4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has been further explained by Shri Imran Ansari key employee of the RHIL. No other evidence has been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A) 4.1 The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop can be sustained solely on the basis of t statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross It is an undisputed position that the entire edifice of the impugned addition rests on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the said entries. On the basis of said material and statement of key person, the said company RHIL accepted the fact in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income but no material evidencing actual payment of cash acknowledgments, or contemporaneous documents or corroborative linking to the assessee t assessee. Even the alleged diary, repeatedly referred to in the statements, was never recovered either from the assessee or during the search of RHIL. 4.2 There is no receipt, no diary, no acknowledgement, no contemporaneous documents and no corroborative linking to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been referred by the lower authorities. It is further evident that despite a specific request, the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross relied upon does not speak for itself and derives its evidentiary value entirely from the explanation furnished by the very person whose statement was relied upon. In such circumstances, denial of cross ITA No. 8860/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 09th February 2026 Relevant observation of the Coordinate bench of Tribunal Shri Arvind K Purohit Vs DCIT in ITA No. is reproduced as under: We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that only evidence which have been referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has been further explained by Shri Imran Ansari key employee of the RHIL. No s been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital records and statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross-examination. It is an undisputed position that the entire edifice of the impugned on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the said entries. On the basis of said material and statement of key person, the said company RHIL accepted the fact of the on in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income but no material evidencing actual payment of cash—such as receipts, diaries, acknowledgments, or contemporaneous documents or corroborative linking to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been found from the assessee. Even the alleged diary, repeatedly referred to in the statements, was never recovered either from the assessee or during the search of There is no receipt, no diary, no acknowledgement, no contemporaneous documents and no corroborative linking to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been referred by the lower authorities. It is further evident that despite a specific request, the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari. The digital material relied upon does not speak for itself and derives its evidentiary value entirely from the explanation furnished by the very person whose statement was relied upon. In such circumstances, denial of cross Kunal Ashok Jain 7 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 8860/MUM/2025 order pronounced on 09th February 2026 of the Coordinate bench of Tribunal ITA No. 4747 and We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the idence which have been referred by the Assessing Officer is an excel sheet wherein name of the assessee is appearing and entry of cash payment is recorded, which has been further explained by Shri Imran Ansari key employee of the RHIL. No s been referred either by the Assessing Officer or by the The controversy before us is narrow and lies in a short compass as to whether the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of the shop party digital records and statements, without any independent corroborative evidence and without examination. It is an undisputed position that the entire edifice of the impugned on (i) an Excel sheet recovered from the possession of a third party during search, and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the said entries. On the basis of said material and statement of key of the on-money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income but no such as receipts, diaries, acknowledgments, or contemporaneous documents or corroborative linking o alleged cash payment has been found from the assessee. Even the alleged diary, repeatedly referred to in the statements, was never recovered either from the assessee or during the search of There is no receipt, no diary, no acknowledgement, no contemporaneous documents and no corroborative linking to the assessee to alleged cash payment has been referred by the lower authorities. It is further evident that despite a specific request, the assessee was denied Imran Ansari. The digital material relied upon does not speak for itself and derives its evidentiary value entirely from the explanation furnished by the very person whose statement was relied upon. In such circumstances, denial of cross- Printed from counselvise.com examination cause principles of natural justice. 4.3 We find that identical issues arising out of the same search action on the Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided in favour of the assessees by various Coordi additions based solely on such uncorroborated third statements were deleted. The Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature or bring on record any fresh or independent material to persuade us to take a different view. 4.4 Identical addition made in the case of Bharat Solanki in ITA No. 6523/Mum/2025, the Co observing as under: “8.5 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Ru Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against offering 8% of income on such declaration. In other words, they have generated huge amount of income in their hands at 33% of tax on the 8% income of the cash declared. Fo in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this was one of the beneficial declaration and have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid such cash on be their own money which they had brought into books in garb of cash on money for tax benefit. 8.6 We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence estab such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove the assessee’s investment or expenditure. 8.7 The Ld. counsel f that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the customers a small diary was being used to provide containing the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by Rubberwala Group having signature of the assessee has been found from the premises of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search was conducted by the Department but no such document in the form of diary was found which could corroborate statement of him, Shri Imran Ansari cooked up a story of cash on for benefiting interest of their company. 8.8 We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari himself stated that cash payments were recorded in a diary ITA No. examination causes manifest prejudice and strikes at the root of the principles of natural justice. We find that identical issues arising out of the same search action on the Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided in favour of the assessees by various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein additions based solely on such uncorroborated third-party material and statements were deleted. The Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature or bring on record any fresh or independent material to persuade us to take a different view. Identical addition made in the case of Bharat Solanki in ITA No. 6523/Mum/2025, the Co-ordinate Bench has deleted the addition observing as under: The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Ru Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against offering 8% of income on such declaration. In other words, they have generated huge amount of income in their hands at 33% of tax on the 8% income of the cash declared. For example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this was one of the beneficial declaration and have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never paid such cash on-money and it might be their own money which they had brought into books in garb of cash on money for tax benefit. We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove the assessee’s investment or expenditure. The Ld. counsel for the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the customers a small diary was being used to provide containing cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by Rubberwala Group having signature of the assessee has been found from the s of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search was conducted by the Department but no such document in the form of diary was found which could corroborate statement of Shri Imran Ansari. According to him, Shri Imran Ansari cooked up a story of cash on-money in his statement for benefiting interest of their company. We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari himself stated that cash payments were recorded in a diary provided to buyers but no such diary was Kunal Ashok Jain 8 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 s manifest prejudice and strikes at the root of the We find that identical issues arising out of the same search action on the Rubberwala Group have been consistently decided in favour of the nate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein party material and statements were deleted. The Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature or bring on record any fresh or independent material Identical addition made in the case of Bharat Solanki in ITA No. ordinate Bench has deleted the addition The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that said Rubberwala Group has credited 100% amount of the cash in its books of accounts against offering 8% of income on such declaration. In other words, they have generated huge amount of income in their hands at 33% of tax on the 8% r example, if the assessee get credited Rs.100 in its books of accounts against cash received then it has paid taxes @ 33% on the Rs.8 which work out to Rs.2.6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this was one of the beneficial declaration and therefore, they have admitted and paid the taxes. The Ld. counsel for the assessee money and it might be their own money which they had brought into books in garb of cash on- We are of opinion that though the Rubberwala Group has admitted receipt of unaccounted cash and offered a percentage thereof to tax, such admission by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser lishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. The disclosure by the developer may explain the source of its own funds, but it does not dispense with the burden on the Revenue to prove or the assessee specifically brought to our attention that Shri Imran Ansari in his answer to question No. 13 of the statement dated 17.03.2021 stated that after receipt of alleged cash from the customers cash details received from the customers. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such diary has been recovered from the assessee nor any kind of receipt issued by Rubberwala Group having signature of the assessee has been found from the s of the Rubberwala group or from the assessee. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of one of the customer sh Rajesh Jain search was conducted by the Department but no such document in the form of diary was Shri Imran Ansari. According to money in his statement We are of opinion that Shri Imran Ansari himself stated that cash provided to buyers but no such diary was Printed from counselvise.com recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search action. This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the statement. 8.9 Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in entirety. The assessee also specifically sought cross constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there i independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet maintained by the same person. 8.10 It is well settled that while income by strict rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice canno where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of effective opportunity to rebut or cross the proceedings. 8.11 In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross examination of the person whose statement is relied upon, the addition rests on suspicion and presumption rat 8.12 It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and the assessee speci (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen notice, the principles of natural justice stood approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on Andaman Timber Industries is, with respect, misconceived and internally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that cross-examination is necessary only where the third “sole basis” of the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, the Excel sheets and the pen dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and the linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entir The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the very foundation of the addition. Much emphasis has been placed by the lower authorities on the proposition that income-tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, it is equally settled that relaxation of evidentiary rules does not imply abrogation of natura admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material co behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be ITA No. recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search action. This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in entirety. The assessee also specifically sought cross-examination of Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there i independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet maintained by the same person. It is well settled that while income-tax proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice canno where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of effective opportunity to rebut or cross-examine strikes at the root of fairness of ngs. In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross examination of the person whose statement is relied upon, the addition rests on suspicion and presumption rather than proof. 8.12 It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and the assessee specifically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, Excel data, and pen-drive contents were supplied through the show notice, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. This approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on Andaman Timber Industries is, with respect, misconceived and ernally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that examination is necessary only where the third-party statement is the “sole basis” of the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, the Excel sheets and the pen-drive data have no independent evidentiary value dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and the linkage of the assessee to such entries emanate entirely from his statement. The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the very foundation of the addition. Much emphasis has been placed by the lower authorities on the proposition tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, it is equally settled that relaxation of evidentiary rules does not imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material co behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be Kunal Ashok Jain 9 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 recovered from the assessee. Even in other cases arising from the same search, including that of Shri Rajesh Jain, no such diary was found despite search action. This materially weakens the evidentiary value of the Further, although the assessment was framed under section 153C of the Act, the incriminating material forming the basis of satisfaction was admittedly not furnished to the assessee in entirety. The assessee also mination of Shri Imran Ansari, whose statement constitutes the fulcrum of the addition. The request was declined on the premise that the statement was not the sole basis of the addition. However, on a careful examination of the record, we find that there is no other independent evidence apart from the said statement and the Excel sheet tax proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted where additions are founded on adverse material collected from third parties. Where such material is relied upon as substantive evidence, denial of examine strikes at the root of fairness of In the absence of any corroborative material directly connecting the assessee with the alleged cash payment, and in the absence of cross- examination of the person whose statement is relied upon, the addition rests 8.12 It is well settled that mere furnishing of copies of statements or documents does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of natural justice, where such material is sought to be used adversely against an assessee and fically disputes its correctness. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the assumption that since extracts of statements, drive contents were supplied through the show-cause fully complied with. This approach conflates disclosure of material with testing of material, which are legally distinct concepts. The reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on Andaman Timber Industries is, with respect, misconceived and ernally contradictory. The said decision has been cited to suggest that party statement is the “sole basis” of the addition. This reading is incorrect. In the present case, the ive data have no independent evidentiary value dehors the explanation and interpretation supplied by Shri Imran Ansari. The alleged cash component, the attribution of entries to specific buyers, and the ely from his statement. The digital material does not speak for itself. Consequently, the statement is not collateral or incidental evidence but the very foundation of the addition. Much emphasis has been placed by the lower authorities on the proposition tax proceedings are not governed by the strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this settled proposition. However, it is equally settled that relaxation of evidentiary rules does not l justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be Printed from counselvise.com subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross 8.13 Considerable reliance has been the Rubberwala Group that it received on This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. It is trite law that an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness or applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged payment is denied and no independent corroboration exists. 8.14 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain primarily on the ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present asse not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary reliance on third reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on be determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of Rajesh Jain rests squarely on two pillars: 1. absence of corroborative material against the assessee, and 2. denial of cross 8.15 Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be followed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the case here. 8.16 The ld CIT(A) relie cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with cross contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present case:  the assessee has payment;  no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the assessee;  the alleged was never recovered; and  the entire edifice of the addition rests on third and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. 8.17 In such circumstances, denial of cross prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. 8.18 We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged cash “on-money” payments for purchase of shops in Rubberwala Group, the Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopr Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance in this regard has been also placed on the decision in no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007 ITA No. subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on-money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. It is trite law that an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness or applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged nied and no independent corroboration exists. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain primarily on the ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present asse not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary reliance on third-party material without cross-examination. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group that it received on-money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of Rajesh Jain rests squarely on two pillars: absence of corroborative material against the assessee, and denial of cross-examination despite specific request. Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be followed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the case here. The ld CIT(A) relied on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay down a blanket proposition dispensing with cross-examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present the assessee has categorically denied having made any cash payment; no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the assessee; the alleged diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, was never recovered; and the entire edifice of the addition rests on third and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. In such circumstances, denial of cross-examination c prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged money” payments for purchase of shops in Platinum Mall Rubberwala Group, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopr Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance in this regard has been also placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) wherein the Coordinate Kunal Ashok Jain 10 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which examination where facts are disputed. placed on the alleged admission by money and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. It is trite law that an admission by one party cannot be used as conclusive evidence against another, unless the latter is afforded an opportunity to test and rebut such admission. The assessee is not estopped from disputing the correctness or applicability of such admission to his case, particularly when the alleged nied and no independent corroboration exists. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to distinguish the coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Jain primarily on the ground that the assessee therein was subjected to search, whereas the present assessee was not. This distinction is wholly irrelevant to the core issue of evidentiary examination. Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwala Group y and offered the same to tax. This, however, cannot be determinative of the assessee’s liability. The ratio of Rajesh Jain rests absence of corroborative material against the assessee, and specific request. Both these features are present in the case before us. Judicial discipline mandates that a coordinate Bench decision on identical facts be followed unless shown to be per incuriam, which is not the case here. d on various decisions to contend that providing cross examination of sh Ansai was not required. These authorities do not lay examination. On the contrary, they consistently hold that the requirement depends on the nature of evidence, its role in the adjudication, and the prejudice caused. In the present having made any cash no cash, diary, or corroborative document was found from the diary, though repeatedly referred to in statements, the entire edifice of the addition rests on third-party statements and electronic data interpreted by those very persons. examination causes manifest prejudice and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. We find that, in identical factual circumstances relating to alleged Platinum Mall from the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Praveen (ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/Mum/2025) has deleted similar additions. The learned also placed reliance upon another decision of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Akhraj Pukhraaj Chopra vs DCIT and Lilaram Vs DCIT in ITAs No.5553 and 5554/Mum/2025, vide order dated 12.11.2025, wherein similar addition was made on the basis of search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group. Reliance in this regard has been also case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA 08) wherein the Coordinate Printed from counselvise.com Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below: 10. material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, howe March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are menti further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of evidences t record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Offic materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on remand report dated 23t Page–53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the ITA No. Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below: I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on– money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are menti further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on–money in cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner ppeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on–money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at 53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on–money payment in cash is without complying the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Kunal Ashok Jain 11 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant ssions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh on account of alleged payment of on–money in cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo ver, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has money in cash towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of he Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on– money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has er to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing andani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not accededto by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner ppeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him money. However, on a perusal of the h June 2017, a copy of which is at 53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on money payment in cash is without complying the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Printed from counselvise.com Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded f making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not a opportunity to cross other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. 11. unsustainable because of the following reason earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on money in cash, no addition merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to concl factum of payment of on can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material conclusively prove the payment of on over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material on record to prove the payment of on assessee. Mor has stoutly denied payment of on ITA No. Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima–facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the mation contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in e of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on–money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on–money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material conclusively prove the payment of on–money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material on record to prove the payment of on–money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on–money in cash. Notably, Kunal Ashok Jain 12 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon rom Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such llowed the assessee an examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition Even otherwise also, the addition made is s. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on– money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the mation contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in e of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on– can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri usively establish the money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / money by the e so, when the assessee from the very beginning money in cash. Notably, Printed from counselvise.com while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in ACIT (supra) has held as under: …….. 8.19 The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied havin any cash over and above the documented consideration. 8.20 The Co-ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has held that such third by any independent evidence and not dire alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complet adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied upon. 8.21 It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not strictly apply to income founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and has a direct nexus with the assessee. Third supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 8.22 Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable opportunity must be granted to rebut or cont addition rests substantially on a third examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE(supra) grant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. 8.23 In the present case, it is undisputed that:  no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment was found from the asse  the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third party;  the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the assessee; and  the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or electronic data, n 8.24 In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of th Act remains unmet. 8.25 During the hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently ITA No. while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under:– The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee of the Rubberwala Group, recorded during the course of search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied havin any cash over and above the documented consideration. ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has held that such third-party statements and electronic records, uncorroborated by any independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complet adverse material nor afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied upon. It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not strictly apply to income-tax proceedings, additions must nevertheless be founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and has a direct nexus with the assessee. Third-party statements, cannot be treated as conclusive unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable opportunity must be granted to rebut or contradict the same. Where the addition rests substantially on a third-party statement, denial of cross examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in n Timber Industries v. CCE(supra) has categorically held that failure to grant such opportunity renders the order a nullity. In the present case, it is undisputed that: no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment was found from the assessee; the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third party; the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the assessee; and the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross-examination permitted. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had, in fact, paid cash “on-money”, the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of th Act remains unmet. During the hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently Kunal Ashok Jain 13 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s The consistent factual matrix emerging from above decisions is that the additions were made solely on the basis of (i) statements of Shri Imran Group, recorded during the course of search, and (ii) data contained in an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found from his possession. No incriminating material was found from the assessee. The assessee, from the inception, categorically denied having paid ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive examination of the facts, has party statements and electronic records, uncorroborated ctly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition under section 69 of the Act. The Bench further noted that, despite specific requests, the assessee was neither confronted with the complete examine Shri Imran Ansari or any other person whose statements were relied upon. It is well settled that while the rigours of the Evidence Act do not itions must nevertheless be founded on material which is reliable, cogent, and has a direct nexus with the party statements, cannot be treated as conclusive unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of Equally well settled is the principle that if the Assessing Officer proposes to rely upon any adverse material to the detriment of the assessee, such material must be confronted to the assessee, and a reasonable radict the same. Where the party statement, denial of cross- examination strikes at the very root of the matter and amounts to a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in has categorically held that failure to no incriminating document or diary evidencing cash payment was found the alleged electronic data was found from the possession of a third the statements relied upon do not specifically record any admission by the assessee was not provided copies of the complete statements or examination permitted. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing money”, the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining an addition under section 69 or 69C of the During the hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative could not bring on record any distinguishing fact or fresh material to persuade us to take a view different from that consistently Printed from counselvise.com adopted by the Co arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, such co followed. 8.26 On a holistic consideration of the facts we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of uncorroborated third assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be sustained in law. 8.27 Accordingly, the addition of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is deleted.” 4.5 It is well settled that wh income-tax proceedings, additions must nonetheless be founded on cogent, reliable material having a direct nexus with the assessee. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. An admission or disclosure by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability on the purchaser in the absence of independent evidence establishing actual payment. 4.6 In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the consistent decisions of the Coordinate Benches o that the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of the shop cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made for the assessment year 2017 7. The core issue for adjudication is whether the additions can be sustained solely on the basis of third records, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross examination. The entire foundation of the impugned additions rests on two pieces of material:(i) an Excel sheet recovered from a third party; and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the entries therein. Admittedly, no incriminating material receipts, diaries, confirmations, or any contemporaneous documents, has been found from the assessee. It is a settled principle that third- conclusive evidence unless it is corroborated by independ ITA No. adopted by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the absence of distinguishing features, such co-ordinate decisions be respectfully On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of uncorroborated third-party material and statements, without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in ion of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the addition of ₹1,00,000/- made under section 69C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is deleted.” 4.5 It is well settled that while strict rules of evidence do not apply to tax proceedings, additions must nonetheless be founded on cogent, reliable material having a direct nexus with the assessee. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. An admission or disclosure by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability on the purchaser in the absence of independent evidence establishing actual payment. In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the consistent decisions of the Coordinate Benches on identical facts, we hold that the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of the shop cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made for the assessment year 2017–18 is deleted.” The core issue for adjudication is whether the additions can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements and digital records, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross examination. The entire foundation of the impugned additions rests on two pieces of material:(i) an Excel sheet recovered from a third party; and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the entries therein. Admittedly, no incriminating material receipts, diaries, confirmations, or any contemporaneous documents, has been found from the assessee. It is a settled -party material, by itself, cannot constitute conclusive evidence unless it is corroborated by independ Kunal Ashok Jain 14 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 nches of the Tribunal in identical matters arising from the same search action. Judicial discipline requires that, in the ordinate decisions be respectfully and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of party material and statements, without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the same, and in ion of the principles of natural justice. Such an addition cannot be made under section 69C of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is deleted.” ile strict rules of evidence do not apply to tax proceedings, additions must nonetheless be founded on cogent, reliable material having a direct nexus with the assessee. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. An admission or disclosure made by the seller cannot, by itself, fasten liability on the purchaser in the absence of independent evidence establishing actual payment. In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the n identical facts, we hold that the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of the shop cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made The core issue for adjudication is whether the additions can be party statements and digital records, without any independent corroborative evidence and without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of cross- examination. The entire foundation of the impugned additions rests on two pieces of material:(i) an Excel sheet recovered from a third party; and (ii) the statement of Shri Imran Ansari explaining the entries therein. Admittedly, no incriminating material, such as cash receipts, diaries, confirmations, or any contemporaneous documents, has been found from the assessee. It is a settled party material, by itself, cannot constitute conclusive evidence unless it is corroborated by independent Printed from counselvise.com material directly linking the assessee to the alleged transaction. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion; however, suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. 7.1 Further, the evidentiary value of the Excel sheet is entirel dependent upon the statement of the person who prepared it. The document does not speak for itself. In such circumstances, denial of the opportunity to cross causes serious prejudice and strikes at the root of the princ natural justice. 7.2 It is undisputed that despite specific requests, the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross Ansari. The law is well settled that where an addition is founded on a third-party statement, denial of evidence unreliable and the resulting addition unsustainable. 7.3 Equally, an admission made by the seller or developer cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that payment. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the alleged investment; it cannot be discharged merely on the basis of generalized disclosures made by another party. 7.4 We further note that in a series of decisions mentio arising out of the very same search action on the Rubberwala Group, coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held ITA No. material directly linking the assessee to the alleged transaction. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion; however, suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. 7.1 Further, the evidentiary value of the Excel sheet is entirel dependent upon the statement of the person who prepared it. The document does not speak for itself. In such circumstances, denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the statement causes serious prejudice and strikes at the root of the princ It is undisputed that despite specific requests, the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari. The law is well settled that where an addition is founded on party statement, denial of cross-examination renders such evidence unreliable and the resulting addition unsustainable. Equally, an admission made by the seller or developer cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent evidence establishing that the purchaser actually made such payment. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the alleged investment; it cannot be discharged merely on the basis of generalized disclosures made by another party. We further note that in a series of decisions mentio arising out of the very same search action on the Rubberwala Group, coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held Kunal Ashok Jain 15 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 material directly linking the assessee to the alleged transaction. At best, such material may give rise to suspicion; however, suspicion, 7.1 Further, the evidentiary value of the Excel sheet is entirely dependent upon the statement of the person who prepared it. The document does not speak for itself. In such circumstances, denial of examine the maker of the statement causes serious prejudice and strikes at the root of the principles of It is undisputed that despite specific requests, the assessee examine Shri Imran Ansari. The law is well settled that where an addition is founded on examination renders such evidence unreliable and the resulting addition unsustainable. Equally, an admission made by the seller or developer cannot, by itself, fasten liability upon the purchaser unless there is cogent the purchaser actually made such payment. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the alleged investment; it cannot be discharged merely on the basis of We further note that in a series of decisions mentioned above arising out of the very same search action on the Rubberwala Group, coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held Printed from counselvise.com that additions based solely on such uncorroborated third material and statements are unsustainable in law. The Rev not brought on record any distinguishing feature or fresh material to warrant a different view. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires us to follow the consistent view already taken. On a cumulative consideration of the facts, it is evident that material was found from the assessee; emanates from a third party; corroboration; and violated by denial of cross evidentiary threshold required to sustain an addition under section 69/69C of the Act is not met. 7.5 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions made on account of alleged unexplained cash payment for purchase of the shop are unsustainable in law. made in the case of the assessee 2020-21 is here by deleted. 8. In the result, both the appeal Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26/03/2026 Disha Raut, Stenographer ITA No. that additions based solely on such uncorroborated third material and statements are unsustainable in law. The Rev not brought on record any distinguishing feature or fresh material to warrant a different view. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires us to follow the consistent view already taken. On a cumulative consideration of the facts, it is evident that(i) no incriminating material was found from the assessee; (ii) the alleged evidence emanates from a third party; (iii) there is no independent corroboration; and (iv) principles of natural justice have been violated by denial of cross-examination. In such circumstances, the evidentiary threshold required to sustain an addition under section 69/69C of the Act is not met. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions made on account of alleged unexplained cash payment for purchase of the shop are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, made in the case of the assessee for both the A.Y deleted. both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/0 Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kunal Ashok Jain 16 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 that additions based solely on such uncorroborated third-party material and statements are unsustainable in law. The Revenue has not brought on record any distinguishing feature or fresh material to warrant a different view. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires us to follow the consistent view already taken. On a cumulative i) no incriminating the alleged evidence there is no independent principles of natural justice have been circumstances, the evidentiary threshold required to sustain an addition under section In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions made on account of alleged unexplained cash payment for purchase ccordingly, the addition both the A.Ys. 2019-20 and of the assessee are allowed. /03/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Kunal Ashok Jain 17 ITA No. 7115 & 7116/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "