MANISH KASHIPRASAD SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) , MUMBAI

ITA 5501/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Seksaria against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These additions were based on alleged cash payments made over and above the declared value of property purchases. The Tribunal examined the procedural lapses in the assessment process, including the failure to provide the assessee with the material used against him and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal referenced several precedents where similar procedural lapses led to the quashing of such additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822787 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai, Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT, Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO, Heena Dashrath Jhanglani vs. ITO, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University vs. DCIT, H.R. Mehta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai, CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs. Kalyana Sundasram
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMA SHANKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KUMAR; INDEPENDENT; INDEPENDENT; INDEPENDENT
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination; Procedural lapse
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5499/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 and ITA No. 5500/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 and ITA No. 5501/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Seksaria, Flat No. 1503, Quienscent, Heights Off Link Road Opp Mumbai, Malad West Dely S.O. Mumbai-400064. PAN – AAEPS3973J Vs. DCIT, Central Circle – 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41-43, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 Printed from counselvise.com Per O. P. Kant (A.M.) These three the common order dated Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals for Assessment Year in dispute being common in together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid repetition of fact. 2. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal ar reproduced as under: 1. A.O. regarding the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order is bad vitiated by procedural lapses, and violates the principles of natural j upon in issuing notice u/s 153C were not furnished to the appellant, and no opportunity for cross examination was provided. The order ought to be quashed on these grounds. 2. 2,00,000/ paid in cash towards the purchase of shop premises over and above the agreement value. The addition is bad conjectures, and unreliable evide material to substantiate the alleged cash payment. There is no corroborative evidence of actual cash payment made by the appellant. ORDER Per O. P. Kant (A.M.) hree appeals by the Assessee are directed against order dated 09.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 52, [in short Ld. CIT (A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 201 in dispute being common in all three appeals, same were heard together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid repetition of fact. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. . The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal ar reproduced as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of the A.O. regarding the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order is bad vitiated by procedural lapses, and violates the principles of natural justice, as the materials and statements relied upon in issuing notice u/s 153C were not furnished to the appellant, and no opportunity for cross examination was provided. The order ought to be quashed on these grounds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-w/s 69 as unexplained investment allegedly paid in cash towards the purchase of shop premises over and above the agreement value. The addition is bad-in-law, arbitrary, and based on surmises, conjectures, and unreliable evidence with no concrete material to substantiate the alleged cash payment. There is no corroborative evidence of actual cash payment made by the appellant. ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 2 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria directed against passed by the Ld. [in short Ld. CIT (A)] 2019-20. The issue appeals, same were heard together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid repetition of fact. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. . The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal are The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of the A.O. regarding the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order is bad-in-law, vitiated by procedural lapses, and violates the principles ustice, as the materials and statements relied upon in issuing notice u/s 153C were not furnished to the appellant, and no opportunity for cross examination was provided. The order ought to be quashed on these the addition of Rs. w/s 69 as unexplained investment allegedly paid in cash towards the purchase of shop premises over and above the agreement value. The addition is law, arbitrary, and based on surmises, nce with no concrete material to substantiate the alleged cash payment. There is no corroborative evidence of actual cash payment Printed from counselvise.com 3. material on record proving that the appellant of Rs. 2,00,000/ purchase. Reliance solely on statements or third documents, without independent verification or opportunity for rebuttal, renders the addition unsustainable. 4. 2,00,000/ any material or document conclusively demonstrating payment during that year. The absence of date or linkage to the relevant assessment year makes the addition illegal and contrary 3. Consequent upon a search and seizure operation executed under section 132 of the Income 2021 in relation to the Rubberwala Group, including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Lt (hereinafter “RHIL other material alleged to have been recovered and seized during the said action, consequential proceedings under section 153C of the Act were instituted against the assessee. 3.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29th August 2017, declaring a total income of Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Act”) was carried out on the flagship concern, M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was 3. The authorities failed to appreciate that there is no material on record proving that the appellant of Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of the shop premises purchase. Reliance solely on statements or third documents, without independent verification or opportunity for rebuttal, renders the addition unsustainable. 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the assessment year 2017 any material or document conclusively demonstrating payment during that year. The absence of date or linkage to the relevant assessment year makes the addition illegal and contrary to provisions of law. Consequent upon a search and seizure operation executed under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 17 2021 in relation to the Rubberwala Group, including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Lt RHIL”), and on the basis of the documents and other material alleged to have been recovered and seized during the said action, consequential proceedings under section 153C of the Act were instituted against the assessee. stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 2017, declaring a total income of Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ) was carried out on the “Rubberwala” Group, including its flagship concern, M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 3 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria The authorities failed to appreciate that there is no material on record proving that the appellant paid cash in respect of the shop premises purchase. Reliance solely on statements or third-party documents, without independent verification or opportunity for rebuttal, renders the addition ing the addition of Rs. in the assessment year 2017-18, without any material or document conclusively demonstrating payment during that year. The absence of date or linkage to the relevant assessment year makes the to provisions of law. Consequent upon a search and seizure operation executed tax Act, 1961, on 17thMarch 2021 in relation to the Rubberwala Group, including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. ”), and on the basis of the documents and other material alleged to have been recovered and seized during the said action, consequential proceedings under section 153C stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 2017, declaring a total income of ₹10,81,920/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Group, including its flagship concern, M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL).During the course of the said search action, it was Printed from counselvise.com alleged on the basis of the had purchased a shop in the “ Girgaon, Mumbai, and had paid a sum of towards the acquisition of the said property. It was further alleged that the said cash payments were ma over Assessment Years 2017 amounts of ₹ respectively.On the basis of the aforesaid material, proceedings under section 153C of the Act were thereafter initiated in the case of the assessee 4. During the course of the search proceedings, statements of certain key persons connected with the transaction were recorded, most notably that of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee stated to be handling the sale and registration of sh “Platinum Mall”. Further, a pen drive of 16 GB capacity was stated to have been recovered from his residence, which, as per his purported statement, was claimed to contain Excel files allegedly reflecting details of cash components received from various purchasers 5. Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show notice to the assessee. It was recorded in the statement of Shri Imran Ansari that he had been in the employ of the Rubberwala alleged on the basis of the material gathered that the assessee had purchased a shop in the “Platinum Mall Girgaon, Mumbai, and had paid a sum of ₹12,64,050/ towards the acquisition of the said property. It was further alleged that the said cash payments were made by the assessee over Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019 ₹2,00,000/-, ₹6,58,600/- and respectively.On the basis of the aforesaid material, proceedings under section 153C of the Act were thereafter initiated in the case of the assessee. During the course of the search proceedings, statements of certain key persons connected with the transaction were recorded, most notably that of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee stated to be handling the sale and registration of sh ”. Further, a pen drive of 16 GB capacity was stated to have been recovered from his residence, which, as per his purported statement, was claimed to contain Excel files allegedly reflecting details of cash components received from various purchasers. Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show notice to the assessee. It was recorded in the statement of Shri Imran Ansari that he had been in the employ of the Rubberwala ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 4 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria material gathered that the assessee Platinum Mall” building at 12,64,050/- in cash towards the acquisition of the said property. It was further de by the assessee 19 and 2019-20 in the and ₹4,05,450/- respectively.On the basis of the aforesaid material, proceedings under section 153C of the Act were thereafter initiated in the During the course of the search proceedings, statements of certain key persons connected with the transaction were recorded, most notably that of Shri Imran Ansari, an employee stated to be handling the sale and registration of shops in the ”. Further, a pen drive of 16 GB capacity was stated to have been recovered from his residence, which, as per his purported statement, was claimed to contain Excel files allegedly reflecting details of cash components received from Relying upon the aforesaid material, including statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. It was recorded in the statement of Shri Imran Ansari that he had been in the employ of the Rubberwala Printed from counselvise.com Group since 2010 and was responsible for the sale and registration of shops in the “ stated that the consideration for the shops comprised two components, a cash component and a banking component, the apportionment of which was a determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and promoter of the Rubberwala Group), and that details of such transactions were maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in Excel sheets.The aforesaid assertion was corroborated by the recovery, during the search at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, of a 16 GB pen drive which he admitted contained the data relating to the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. He also disclosed that he would escort purchasers to one Shri Abrar Ahmed, who, upon receiving ca Imran Ansari so that the diaries and the Excel records could be updated. 6. The assessee, however, categorically denied having made any cash payments to any person the individuals named in the th Importantly, the assessee sought production of the statements and other adverse material relied upon by the Revenue and requested an opportunity for cross whose depositions were relied upon acceded to by the learned Assessing Officer. Relying upon the 2010 and was responsible for the sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall”. It was further stated that the consideration for the shops comprised two a cash component and a banking the apportionment of which was a determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and promoter of the Rubberwala Group), and that details of such transactions were maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in Excel sheets.The aforesaid assertion was corroborated by the ng the search at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, of a 16 GB pen drive which he admitted contained the data relating to the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. He also disclosed that he would escort purchasers to one Shri Abrar Ahmed, who, upon receiving cash, would thereafter inform Shri Imran Ansari so that the diaries and the Excel records could be The assessee, however, categorically denied having made any cash payments to any person and disclaimed knowledge of the individuals named in the third-party statements. Importantly, the assessee sought production of the statements and other adverse material relied upon by the Revenue and requested an opportunity for cross-examination of the persons whose depositions were relied upon.These requests we acceded to by the learned Assessing Officer. Relying upon the ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 5 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria 2010 and was responsible for the sale and ”. It was further stated that the consideration for the shops comprised two a cash component and a banking-channel the apportionment of which was allegedly determined by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and promoter of the Rubberwala Group), and that details of such transactions were maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in Excel sheets.The aforesaid assertion was corroborated by the ng the search at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, of a 16 GB pen drive which he admitted contained the data relating to the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. He also disclosed that he would escort purchasers to one Shri Abrar sh, would thereafter inform Shri Imran Ansari so that the diaries and the Excel records could be The assessee, however, categorically denied having made disclaimed knowledge of party statements. Importantly, the assessee sought production of the statements and other adverse material relied upon by the Revenue and examination of the persons hese requests were not acceded to by the learned Assessing Officer. Relying upon the Printed from counselvise.com search findings in the case of the RHIL Group and the fact that the RHIL Group purportedly offered 8% of its overall unaccounted receipts, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹2,00,000/ 18 under section 69 of the Act, treating the amount as unexplained cash investment towards the shop allegedly acquired by the assessee 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who confirmed the additions in respect of the alleged cash component of the shop purchase, amounting to ₹2,00,000/- in A.Y. 2017 ₹4,05,450/- in A.Y. sustained by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal 7. Before us, it was vehemently submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the incriminating material recovere possession of the Rubberwala Group does not, either facie or otherwise, implicate the assessee. It was contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the Assessing Officer’s conclusion notwithstanding the Revenue’s failure to produce the third-party statements relied upon and without affording the assessee an opportunity for cross search findings in the case of the RHIL Group and the fact that the RHIL Group purportedly offered 8% of its overall unaccounted receipts, the learned Assessing Officer made an 2,00,000/- to the assessee’s income for A.Y. 2017 18 under section 69 of the Act, treating the amount as unexplained cash investment towards the shop allegedly acquired by the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried er in appeal before the learned Commissioner of tax (Appeals), who confirmed the additions in respect of the alleged cash component of the shop purchase, amounting to in A.Y. 2017-18, ₹6,58,600/- in A.Y. 2018 in A.Y. 2019-20. Still aggrieved by the additions so sustained by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. Before us, it was vehemently submitted on behalf of the ssessee that the incriminating material recovere possession of the Rubberwala Group does not, either or otherwise, implicate the assessee. It was contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the Assessing Officer’s conclusion notwithstanding the Revenue’s failure to produce party statements relied upon and without affording the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of those ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 6 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria search findings in the case of the RHIL Group and the fact that the RHIL Group purportedly offered 8% of its overall unaccounted receipts, the learned Assessing Officer made an s income for A.Y. 2017- 18 under section 69 of the Act, treating the amount as unexplained cash investment towards the shop allegedly Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried er in appeal before the learned Commissioner of tax (Appeals), who confirmed the additions in respect of the alleged cash component of the shop purchase, amounting to in A.Y. 2018-19, and 20. Still aggrieved by the additions so sustained by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the Before us, it was vehemently submitted on behalf of the ssessee that the incriminating material recovered from the possession of the Rubberwala Group does not, either prima or otherwise, implicate the assessee. It was contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the Assessing Officer’s conclusion notwithstanding the Revenue’s failure to produce party statements relied upon and without affording examination of those Printed from counselvise.com witnesses. Further submitted was that the material so referenced cannot be treated as admissible evidence against the assessee in law a corroborative link between such material and the assessee, no addition under section 69 of the Act can be sustained addition would be founded on conjecture and assumption. Reliance was placed upon the judgment Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai (ITA No. 4742/4743/4744/Mum/2025) 8. The rival submissions were heard and the material on record was perused. Substantial merit is found in the contentions advanced on behalf of the assessee. It settled principle of law that where an addition is sought to be made solely on the basis of a third material alleged to belong to or relate to the assessee, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to cross persons whose statements are relied upon. In the absence of such confrontation and opportunity for cross impugned addition cannot be sustained and the assessment stands vitiated. 8.1 In the present case, the alleged incriminating material namely, the pen witnesses. Further submitted was that the material so referenced cannot be treated as admissible evidence against the assessee in law and, in the absence of any cogent or corroborative link between such material and the assessee, no addition under section 69 of the Act can be sustained addition would be founded on conjecture and assumption. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai (ITA No. 4742/4743/4744/Mum/2025). The rival submissions were heard and the material on perused. Substantial merit is found in the contentions advanced on behalf of the assessee. It settled principle of law that where an addition is sought to be made solely on the basis of a third-party statement or on material alleged to belong to or relate to the assessee, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to cross persons whose statements are relied upon. In the absence of such confrontation and opportunity for cross-examination, the impugned addition cannot be sustained and the assessment In the present case, the alleged incriminating material namely, the pen-drive, Excel sheets and the statements ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 7 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria witnesses. Further submitted was that the material so referenced cannot be treated as admissible evidence against the nd, in the absence of any cogent or corroborative link between such material and the assessee, no addition under section 69 of the Act can be sustained. Any such addition would be founded on conjecture and assumption. Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai (ITA No. The rival submissions were heard and the material on perused. Substantial merit is found in the contentions advanced on behalf of the assessee. It is a well- settled principle of law that where an addition is sought to be party statement or on material alleged to belong to or relate to the assessee, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements are relied upon. In the absence of examination, the impugned addition cannot be sustained and the assessment In the present case, the alleged incriminating material drive, Excel sheets and the statements Printed from counselvise.com emanated exclusively from third documentary evidence evidencing payment of any “ by the assessee (such as cash records issued by or emanating from the assessee) was recovered from the searched premises. Mere entries in a third party Excel sheet, without more, cannot be treated as substantive evidence corroborated and linked to the assessee by independent and cogent evidence. No corroborative evidence of an actual cash payment by the assessee has been placed on the record. Nor were the pen-drive or the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh supplied to the assessee for inspection or for the purpose of cross law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof; untested and uncorroborated third cannot be allowed to con under section 69. The Revenue has accordingly failed to discharge the onus cast upon it of producing credible, independent and cogent material establishing that the assessee made any payment in cash over and above the consideration. In line with these principles, the Coordinate Bench in Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (supra) held that where additions rest solely on third or material and the assessee is not afforded confrontation and emanated exclusively from third-party premises documentary evidence evidencing payment of any “ by the assessee (such as cash receipts, vouchers or bank records issued by or emanating from the assessee) was recovered from the searched premises. Mere entries in a third party Excel sheet, without more, cannot be treated as substantive evidence as such material must be authenticated corroborated and linked to the assessee by independent and cogent evidence. No corroborative evidence of an actual cash payment by the assessee has been placed on the record. Nor drive or the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or aikh supplied to the assessee for inspection or for the purpose of cross-examination. It is a trite principle of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof; untested and uncorroborated third-party admissions cannot be allowed to constitute the sole basis for an addition under section 69. The Revenue has accordingly failed to discharge the onus cast upon it of producing credible, independent and cogent material establishing that the assessee made any payment in cash over and above the consideration. In line with these principles, the Coordinate Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (supra) held that where additions rest solely on third-party statements or material and the assessee is not afforded confrontation and ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 8 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria party premises.No documentary evidence evidencing payment of any “on-money” receipts, vouchers or bank records issued by or emanating from the assessee) was recovered from the searched premises. Mere entries in a third- party Excel sheet, without more, cannot be treated as such material must be authenticated, corroborated and linked to the assessee by independent and cogent evidence. No corroborative evidence of an actual cash payment by the assessee has been placed on the record. Nor drive or the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or aikh supplied to the assessee for inspection or examination. It is a trite principle of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of party admissions stitute the sole basis for an addition under section 69. The Revenue has accordingly failed to discharge the onus cast upon it of producing credible, independent and cogent material establishing that the assessee made any payment in cash over and above the recorded consideration. In line with these principles, the Coordinate Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT (supra) has party statements or material and the assessee is not afforded confrontation and Printed from counselvise.com an opportunity for cross unsustainable.:- “8. We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From t noticed that the assessment was completed u/s 153C on account of the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search action, premises of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), it Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement persons were recorded search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the respective buyers of the shops. However, on the other hand, the assessee denied payment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pendrive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was found, which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153 framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 9. We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Rajesh Jain on identical issue but misplace its reliance. After having gone through the basic facts case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is reproduced as under: 5.1. On 17.03.2021, the residential premise of the assessee was also covered by way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Search action was also initiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021. In such action along with premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubberwala group entities, residences of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and Shri Imran Ansari group handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered under section 132 of the Act. Among others, statement pportunity for cross-examination, the addition is We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From t noticed that the assessment was completed u/s 153C on account of the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search action, premises of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), its promoter and director Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement persons were recorded on oath onvarious dates during the course of search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the respective buyers of the shops. However, on the other hand, the assessee denied ayment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pendrive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was found, which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153 framed and the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Rajesh Jain on identical issue but misplace its reliance. After having gone through the basic facts case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is reproduced as under: On 17.03.2021, the residential premise of the assessee was also covered by way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Search action o initiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021. In such action along with premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubberwala group entities, residences of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and Shri Imran Ansari - a key employee of Rubberwala group handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered under section 132 of the Act. Among others, statement ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 9 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria examination, the addition is We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before me and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessment was completed u/s 153C on account of the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021 on Rubberwala group. In search action, premises of M/s. Rubberwala s promoter and director-Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran Ansari, who was handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement of these on oath onvarious dates during the course of search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the respective buyers of the shops. However, on the other hand, the assessee denied ayment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pendrive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was found, which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was We noticed that Ld. CIT(A) although referred the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Rajesh Jain on identical issue but misplace its reliance. After having gone through the basic facts of Rajesh Jain case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is On 17.03.2021, the residential premise of the assessee was also covered by way of search action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Search action o initiated on Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021. In such action along with premises (offices/sites/others) of Rubberwala group entities, residences of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri mployee of Rubberwala group handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered under section 132 of the Act. Among others, statement Printed from counselvise.com of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as well as post se 5.2. During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Agripada, Mumbai Central - section 132 of the I.T. Act at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In re Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter shops in “PlatinumMall” Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). 5.3. Shri Im said statement explained the complete procedure of the of the sale of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project. While explaining further about the price structure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in resp categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group). On probing fur Q. no. 16, stated that these prices, as decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, are communicated to him orally. He also revealed in response to Q. no. 17 of the said statement that data related to shops is maintained by him i sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved from his possession. The said pen drive is accepted also accepted that this pen drive is containing data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explained that this data is prepared by him. Shri Imran Ansari’s this acceptance also cor the fact that the said data was retrieved from the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwala Group. 5.4. It was ascertained that the data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in an excel file namely said file sheets with different name viz “Master”, “Payment” and “Cheque” etc. are found to be maintained. It is also found out that in respect of the sale of shops in the said project, comprehensive data is being maint in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet “Master” is so elaborate that the data in the said sheet is spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as well as post search proceedings. During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Agripada, Mumbai 400011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari was covered under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In re Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter-alia handling sale and registration of the shops in “PlatinumMall” Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). Shri Imran Ansari in his response to question no. 13 & 14 of the said statement explained the complete procedure of the of the sale of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project. While explaining further about the price structure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in resp categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group). On probing further, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 16, stated that these prices, as decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, are communicated to him orally. He also revealed in response to Q. no. 17 of the said statement that data related to shops is maintained by him i sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved from his possession. The said pen drive is accepted by Shri Imran Ansari belonging to him and he also accepted that this pen drive is containing data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explained that this data is prepared by him. Shri Imran Ansari’s this acceptance also cor the fact that the said data was retrieved from the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwala Group. It was ascertained that the data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in an excel file namely “consolidated 1 2 3 balance”. In the said file sheets with different name viz “Master”, “Payment” and “Cheque” etc. are found to be maintained. It is also found out that in respect of the sale of shops in the said project, comprehensive data is being maint in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet “Master” is so elaborate that the data in the said sheet is spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 10 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Agripada, Mumbai 400011) of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari was covered under , 1961. His statement was also recorded on oath at his residence. Vide question no. 11 of the said statement dt. 17.03.2021, Shri Imran Ansari was questioned about his roles and responsibilities in M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of alia handling sale and registration of the shops in “PlatinumMall” Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & ran Ansari in his response to question no. 13 & 14 of the said statement explained the complete procedure of the of the sale of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project. While explaining further about the price structure of the shops, Shri Imran Ansari in response to Q. no. 15 categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of ther, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 16, stated that these prices, as decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh, are communicated to him orally. He also revealed in response to Q. no. 17 of the said statement that data related to shops is maintained by him in excel sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB Pendrive was retrieved from his possession. The by Shri Imran Ansari belonging to him and he also accepted that this pen drive is containing data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. Shri Imran Ansari explained that this data is prepared by him. Shri Imran Ansari’s this acceptance also corroborates with the fact that the said data was retrieved from the residential premises of Shri Imran Ansari and not from any office of Rubberwala Group. It was ascertained that the data is being maintained by Shri “consolidated 1 2 3 balance”. In the said file sheets with different name viz “Master”, “Payment” and “Cheque” etc. are found to be maintained. It is also found out that in respect of the sale of shops in the said project, comprehensive data is being maintained in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet “Master” is so elaborate that the data in the said sheet is spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns Printed from counselvise.com of “Master” sheet and Imran Ansari further support the fact that the he was maintaining the said data and therefore could explain all these columns with relevance and purpose. Shri Imran Ansari in response to Question no. 22, 23 explained in detail the meaning and relevant of each and every column. In column B, against the name of ‘Raj Bhai Jain’/‘Raj BhaiJain(I.S)’, total 27 shops have been entered. Further, these 27 shops are stated (by Shri Imran Ansari) to be book Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement during post search proceedings on 19.08.2021 categorically confirmed the admission made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confirmed the data of said excel to be true byconfirming facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari in his statement. It is also important to note here that the phone number mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh Jain. 5.5. Regarding the frequency o Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is updated on the same day when a payment is received either in cash or cheque (or banking channel). The column A to AR of the sheet “Master” are stated to be updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the said excel file are also stated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in the above response that he takes the parties to ShriAbrar Ahmed (who during the search established to be a person hand ShriAbrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari who update the diariesand the said excel file. Such detailed mechanism in place further upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari on oath. It is also important to note here that Shri Imran Ansari also used to call and follow up with the buyers on the numbers saved in his data. As aforementioned, the number, for the shops for which the assessee has paid the cash component, is mentioned as 989219607 own number. Thus, it makes clear that for the cash payment part, for all the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari used to follow up with Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only………………… 10. We also noticed that the decision of the in the case of Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 3842& 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 and3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is reproduced herein below: 12. The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020 the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash payments relating to the shops purchased by others cannot be assessed in the hands of the of “Master” sheet and such explanation of each and every column by Shri Imran Ansari further support the fact that the he was maintaining the said data and therefore could explain all these columns with relevance and purpose. Shri Imran Ansari in response to Question no. 22, 23 explained in detail the meaning and relevant of each and every column. In column B, against the name of ‘Raj Bhai Jain’/‘Raj BhaiJain(I.S)’, total 27 shops have been entered. Further, these 27 shops are stated (by Shri Imran Ansari) to be booked by the assessee only. Also, ShriTabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement during post search proceedings on 19.08.2021 categorically confirmed the admission made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confirmed the data of said excel to be true byconfirming facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari in his statement. It is also important to note here that the phone number mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh Regarding the frequency of updating the said excel file/sheet, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is updated on the same day when a payment is received either in cash or cheque (or banking channel). The column A to AR of the sheet “Master” are ed to be updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the said excel file are also stated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in the above response that he takes the parties to ShriAbrar Ahmed (who during the search established to be a person handing cash for the Rubberwala Group). ShriAbrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari who update the diariesand the said excel file. Such detailed mechanism in place further upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari on oath. It is also important to note here that Shri Imran Ansari also used to call and follow up with the buyers on the numbers saved in his data. As aforementioned, the number, for the shops for which the assessee has paid the cash component, is mentioned as 9892196071, which is the assessee’s own number. Thus, it makes clear that for the cash payment part, for all the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari used to follow up with Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only………………… We also noticed that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 3842& 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 and3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is reproduced herein below: The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020 ief granted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash payments relating to the shops purchased by others cannot be assessed in the hands of the ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 11 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria such explanation of each and every column by Shri Imran Ansari further support the fact that the he was maintaining the said data and therefore could explain all these columns with relevance and purpose. Shri Imran Ansari in response to Question no. 22, 23 and 24, has explained in detail the meaning and relevant of each and every column. In column B, against the name of ‘Raj Bhai Jain’/‘Raj BhaiJain(I.S)’, total 27 shops have been entered. Further, these 27 shops are stated (by Shri ed by the assessee only. Also, ShriTabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement during post search proceedings on 19.08.2021 categorically confirmed the admission made by Shri Imran Ansari, and has confirmed the data of the said excel to be true byconfirming facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari in his statement. It is also important to note here that the phone number mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh f updating the said excel file/sheet, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is updated on the same day when a payment is received either in cash or cheque (or banking channel). The column A to AR of the sheet “Master” are ed to be updated till 16.03.2021 and other sheets of the said excel file are also stated to be updated till 16.03.2021. It is revealed in the above response that he takes the parties to ShriAbrar Ahmed (who during the ing cash for the Rubberwala Group). ShriAbrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari who update the diariesand the said excel file. Such detailed mechanism in place further upholds the facts stated by Shri Imran Ansari on oath. It is also important to note here that Shri Imran Ansari also used to call and follow up with the buyers on the numbers saved in his data. As aforementioned, the number, for the shops for which the assessee has paid 1, which is the assessee’s own number. Thus, it makes clear that for the cash payment part, for all the above mentioned 27 shops, Shri Imran Ansari used to follow up with Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Jain in ITA No. 3842& 3841 & ITA No. 3954,3952,3951 and3950/Mum/2023 on the identical facts is The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020-21 is with regard to ief granted by Ld CIT(A) holding that the cash payments relating to the shops purchased by others cannot be assessed in the hands of the Printed from counselvise.com assessee. The decision rendered by us in AY 2018 identical issue on merits in the earlier paragrap also. Following the same, we affirm the order passed by LdCIT(A) on this issue. 13. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash payment of Rs.18,64,200/ CIT(A) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search conducted in their hands, incriminating documents containing details of cash collected were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. However, the assessee denied payment of cash. However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the case of Rubberwa in AY 2020-21. The LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The ld A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the same. The AO also did despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on various case laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. 16. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We n AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so g such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view th addition of Rs.18,64,200/ take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08 decided as under: assessee. The decision rendered by us in AY 2018-19 and 2019 identical issue on merits in the earlier paragraphs would apply in this year also. Following the same, we affirm the order passed by LdCIT(A) on this In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash payment of Rs.18,64,200/- in respect of purchase of shop confirmed by Ld ) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search conducted in their hands, incriminating documents containing details of cash collected on sale of various shops were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. However, the assessee denied payment of cash. However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the case of Rubberwala group and accordingly made addition of Rs.18,64,200/ 21. The LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The ld A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the same. The AO also did not provide the opportunity of cross examination despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on various case laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. 16. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We n AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view th addition of Rs.18,64,200/- cannot be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under:- ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 12 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria 19 and 2019-20 on an hs would apply in this year also. Following the same, we affirm the order passed by LdCIT(A) on this In the appeal filed by the assessee, the addition of alleged cash in respect of purchase of shop confirmed by Ld ) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala group. During the course of search conducted in their hands, incriminating on sale of various shops were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. However, the assessee denied payment of cash. However, the AO relied upon the materials found in the la group and accordingly made addition of Rs.18,64,200/- 21. The LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The ld A.R submitted that the addition was made on the basis of third party statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the not provide the opportunity of cross examination despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on various case laws, the Ld A.R submitted that this addition should be deleted. 16. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the iven, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned cannot be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal in an identical issue was Printed from counselvise.com 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO had placed reliance upon. The Hon of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. W said decision of Hon present case. 11. From the above we find that the Coordinate bench has consider the same facts and rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and since the facts of the present case are also identical with the facts of Rajesh Jain’s (supra) case, therefore the said decision will be application on the facts of the present case as well. Moreover, the assessee categorically denied having paid any a above the agreement value. The AO has neither confronted assessee with any of the material found during the search on Rubberwala group and even noevidence or seized document has been referred to where any name of the assessee account of paying any ‘on 12. Although it has been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material /documents /p confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was confronted. 13. Therefore, in our view, the information if any found in the pendrive etc., cannot be considered as ‘credible evidence’, unless they have been corroborated wi was not provided with the adverse material, if any, based on which notice u/s153 of the Act, was issued, in our view, it hampers the primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice. 14. As far as th same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of assessment, during the search and seizure conducted in the case of third party therefore, in the absence of corroborati evidence to establish that the contents of pendrive are correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO had placed reliance upon. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that the above said decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the present case. From the above we find that the Coordinate bench has consider the same facts and rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and since the facts of the present case are also identical with the facts of Rajesh Jain’s (supra) case, therefore the said decision will be application on the facts of the present case as well. Moreover, the assessee categorically denied having paid any amount in cash over and above the agreement value. The AO has neither confronted assessee with any of the material found during the search on Rubberwala group and even noevidence or seized document has been referred to where any name of the assessee has been explicitly mentioned on account of paying any ‘on-money’. Although it has been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material /documents /p confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was Therefore, in our view, the information if any found in the pendrive etc., cannot be considered as ‘credible evidence’, unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Since the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, if any, based on which notice u/s153 of the Act, was issued, in our view, it hampers the primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice. As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of assessment, during the search and seizure conducted in the case of third party therefore, in the absence of corroborati evidence to establish that the contents of pendrive are correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on- money’ in cash, no ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 13 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO ‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to e are of the view that the above ‟ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the From the above we find that the Coordinate bench has consider the same facts and rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and since the facts of the present case are also identical with the facts of Rajesh Jain’s (supra) case, therefore the said decision will be application on the facts of the present case as well. Moreover, the mount in cash over and above the agreement value. The AO has neither confronted assessee with any of the material found during the search on Rubberwala group and even noevidence or seized document has been referred to has been explicitly mentioned on Although it has been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material /documents /pendrive was confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was Therefore, in our view, the information if any found in the pendrive etc., cannot be considered as ‘credible evidence’, unless they th any other evidence. Since the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, if any, based on which notice u/s153 of the Act, was issued, in our view, it hampers the primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice. e information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found as per order of assessment, during the search and seizure conducted in the case of third party therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of pendrive are correct and money’ in cash, no Printed from counselvise.com addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein below: 10. I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, t account of alleged payment of on lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the A Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice dated 4th March 2015, 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 s 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 mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under sect Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on 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 w demonstrates that the assessee had paid on 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 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied 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 di the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007 08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein 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–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 A Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on 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 s 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on– money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and further, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on 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 w 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 Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied 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–money. However, on a perusal of the remand ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 14 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria addition can be made and even otherwise during the entire reassessment proceedings the veracity and reliability of the data recorded in the pendrive was not checked or tested. Therefore, in such a scenariono addition is warranted in the case of assessee. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in case of Heena (Assessment Year : 2007– 08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee and the relevant portion is being reproduced herein I have considered rival submissions and perused material on he genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh 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 on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause 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 money paid by buyers / prospective buyers to Hiranandani Group concerns are mentioned and further, in the ion 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 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 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 (Appeals) in letter rected the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with money. However, on a perusal of the remand Printed from counselvise.com report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page 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 direct Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of na that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer 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 assessee, which prima Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross 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 B Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. 11. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on 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 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 section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on 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 report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page 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 direct Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer 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 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 ition 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 he 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 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 ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 15 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page–53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of ` 42 lakh made on account of on–money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental tural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for deciding an issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront 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, addition. However, it is the allegation of the 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 ench, 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 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 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 he 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 assessee is that in the 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 Printed from counselvise.com from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to 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 from the very beginning has sto Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as u …….. 15. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Monika Anand Gupta I.T.A. No. 5561/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011 held as under. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find thatthe addition for on corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based upon some statement of the builder. Such additions are not sustainable on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kalyana sundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collected by revenue at the builder’s office is compliant with the requirement of section 65B of Evidence Act regarding admi aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be deleted. 16. In the case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, ITA No.1553/M/2021 Assessment Year: 2011 under: 9. Since the sole issue raised in this appeal is covered by the order (supra) passed by the co is not sustainable. Because the addition is made merely on the basis of statement made by one Group under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroboration. Moreover, statement or any material seized during the course of search under section 132(4) of the Act can only be used against Mr. Suraj Parmar of Cosmos Group and not against the assessee without any from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on–money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on–money by the as 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 Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as u Reliance has also been placed in the case of Monika Anand Gupta I.T.A. No. 5561/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12)whereas coordinate bench 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find thatthe addition for on-money payment has been done in thiscase without any corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based upon some statement of the builder. Such additions are not sustainable on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kalyana sundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collected by revenue at the builder’s office is compliant with the requirement of section 65B of Evidence Act regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be In the case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, ITA No.1553/M/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12, wherein the coordinate bench has held a 9. Since the sole issue raised in this appeal is covered by the order (supra) passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal addition made in this case is not sustainable. Because the addition is made merely on the basis of statement made by one Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the promoters of Cosmos Group under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroboration. Moreover, statement or any material seized during the course of search under section 132(4) of the Act can only be used against Mr. Suraj armar of Cosmos Group and not against the assessee without any ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 16 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the 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 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 money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee utly denied payment of on–money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transaction with another concern of Hiranandani Group, the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under:– Reliance has also been placed in the case of Monika Anand Gupta 12)whereas coordinate bench 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find thatthe payment has been done in thiscase without any corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based upon some statement of the builder. Such additions are not sustainable on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs P.V Kalyana sundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collected by revenue at the builder’s office is compliant with the requirement of section 65B of ssibility of electronic evidence. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be In the case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, ITA No.1553/M/2021 12, wherein the coordinate bench has held as 9. Since the sole issue raised in this appeal is covered by the order (supra) ordinate Bench of the Tribunal addition made in this case is not sustainable. Because the addition is made merely on the basis of Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the promoters of Cosmos Group under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroboration. Moreover, statement or any material seized during the course of search under section 132(4) of the Act can only be used against Mr. Suraj armar of Cosmos Group and not against the assessee without any Printed from counselvise.com corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from the office of builders is also not admissible being not proved under section 65 of the Evidence Act. So in view of the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 17. For the above proposition, we place reliance upon the decision in the case of ITO Vs. Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2573/Mum/2017, ITO Vs. Nikhil Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017 Heena Dashrath Jhanglani Vs.ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/2022. 18. From the records we also noticed that no statement was provided to the assessee, and none of the persons, whose statements were relied upon were produced for cross statement mentioned in the assessment order does not ind name of the assessee. 19. Apart, the AO during the course of assessment also failed to provide the opportunity to cross examine of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the revenue which resulted in ‘breach of principles of natural upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity’. 20. In the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418ITR 315), it was held th party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny and denying the opportunity of cross examination of the third party renders the addition/disallowance bad in law’ 21. In the case of H.R. Mehta v tax, Mumbai under In the light of the fact that the money was advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from the office of builders is also not admissible being not proved under section 65 of the Evidence Act. So in view of the matter, addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is For the above proposition, we place reliance upon the decision in the case of ITO Vs. Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2573/Mum/2017, ITO Vs. Nikhil Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017 Heena Dashrath Jhanglani Vs.ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/2022. rom the records we also noticed that no statement was provided to the assessee, and none of the persons, whose statements were relied upon were produced for cross-examination. Even the extract of the statement mentioned in the assessment order does not ind name of the assessee. Apart, the AO during the course of assessment also failed to provide the opportunity to cross examine of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the revenue which resulted in ‘breach of principles of natural justice’. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity’. In the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418ITR 315), it was held that the ‘addition/disallowance made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny and denying the opportunity of cross examination of the third party renders the addition/disallowance bad in law’ In the case of H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissionerof tax, Mumbai 72taxmann.com110 (Bombay) wherein it was held as In the light of the fact that the money was advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 17 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from the office of builders is also not admissible being not proved under section 65 of the matter, addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is For the above proposition, we place reliance upon the decision in the case of ITO Vs. Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2573/Mum/2017, ITO Vs. Nikhil Vinod Aggarwal, ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017 Heena Dashrath Jhanglani Vs.ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/2022. rom the records we also noticed that no statement was provided to the assessee, and none of the persons, whose statements were relied examination. Even the extract of the statement mentioned in the assessment order does not indicate the Apart, the AO during the course of assessment also failed to provide the opportunity to cross examine of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the revenue which resulted in ‘breach of justice’. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders In the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418ITR at the ‘addition/disallowance made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny and denying the opportunity of cross examination of the third party renders the /s Assistant Commissionerof Income- 72taxmann.com110 (Bombay) wherein it was held as In the light of the fact that the money was advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least Printed from counselvise.com that the Assessing Officer should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against him in arriving before passing the order of assessment. This not having been done, the denial of s the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material use examine the deponents whose statements were relied upon by him. Despite the request seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponents and furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose were denied to him. 22. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed by us above, we direct the AO to delete the addition, consequently these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the absence of confrontation, lack of cross incriminating material belonging to the assessee, and respectfully following the decision of the co this Tribunal, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and the ground no. 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are allowed on merits. In view of the fact that the addition has already been deleted on merits, therefore all other grounds rendered academic and require no adjudication. 10. Since the facts and circumstances of the case are identical for A.Y. 2018-19 and A.Y. 2019 A.Y. 2017-18 above shall apply mut sessing Officer should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against him in arriving before passing the order of assessment. This not having been done, the denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents whose statements were relied upon by him. Despite the request seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponents and furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose were denied to him. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed by us above, we direct the AO to delete the addition, consequently these grounds raised by the assessee are In view of the foregoing discussion, the absence of confrontation, lack of cross-examination, absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee, and espectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and the ground no. 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are allowed on merits. In view of the fact that the addition has already been deleted on merits, therefore all other grounds rendered academic and require no adjudication. Since the facts and circumstances of the case are identical 19 and A.Y. 2019-20, the decision rendered for above shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 18 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria sessing Officer should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against him in arriving before passing the order of assessment. uch opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the d against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents whose statements were relied upon by him. Despite the request seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponents and furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose material, these Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed by us above, we direct the AO to delete the addition, consequently these grounds raised by the assessee are In view of the foregoing discussion, the absence of examination, absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee, and ordinate bench of this Tribunal, we delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and the ground no. 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are allowed on merits. In view of the fact that the addition has already been deleted on merits, therefore all other grounds rendered Since the facts and circumstances of the case are identical , the decision rendered for atis mutandis to A.Y. 2018- Printed from counselvise.com 19 and A.Y. 2019 ld. CIT(A) is delete 11. In the result, appeal Order pronounced in the open Court on (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/12/2025 Tarun, Sr. P.S.. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// 19 and A.Y. 2019-20 as well and the addition confirmed ld. CIT(A) is deleted. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed. ounced in the open Court on 23 Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant The Respondent. DR, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITA No. 5499 to 5501/MUM/2025 19 Mr. Manish Kashiprasad Saksaria confirmed by the allowed. 23/12/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "