MISHRA GANESHA RAM ,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE , MUMBAI

ITA 5552/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mr. Mishra Ganesha Ram against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Center, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These additions were based on findings from a search and seizure operation conducted on the Rubberwala Group, which allegedly implicated the assessee in unaccounted cash transactions related to property purchases. The Tribunal examined the procedural lapses in the assessment, including the lack of a proper opportunity for cross-examination and the reliance on third-party statements and documents without direct evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823156 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai, Rajesh Jain case, Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO, Heena Dashrath Jhanglani vs. ITO, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University vs. DCIT, H.R. Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KUMAR; INDEPENDENT; COGENT MATERIAL. NO; INDEPENDENT; COGENT MATERIAL. NO; INDEPENDENT; COGENT MATERIAL. NO
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 132; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5556/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 and ITA No. 5552/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Mishra Ganesha Ram, Gautam Nagar, Rahiwasi Sangh, MIDC road, Andheri East, Mumbai. PAN – BYIPR6853H 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 Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER Per O. P. Kant (A.M.) These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the common order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [in short Ld. CIT (A)] for Assessment Year 201 20and 2020-21. The issue in dispute being common in both appeals, same were heard 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. 2019-20. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal are reproduced as under: 1. law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of A.O. about that the Act without DIN. It is blatant contravention of the Circular No. 19/2019,dated 14 issued by the CBDT 2. law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. law, Ld. for not sharing in during the course of search of rubberwala group which was pertained to the appellant. 4. law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the not providing statement and materi used by him against the appellant 5. law, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [in short Ld. CIT (A)] for Assessment Year 201 21. The issue in dispute being common in both appeals, same were heard together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid . Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 20. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal are reproduced as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of A.O. about that issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act without DIN. It is blatant contravention of the Circular No. 19/2019,dated 14-8 issued by the CBDT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. for not sharing incrementing documents found during the course of search of rubberwala group which was pertained to the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the not providing statement and materi used by him against the appellant 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 2 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [in short Ld. CIT (A)] for Assessment Year 2019- 21. The issue in dispute being common in both appeals, same were heard together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 20. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal are On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act without DIN. It is blatant contravention of 8-2019 On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the On the facts and circumstances of the case in CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. crementing documents found during the course of search of rubberwala group On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about the not providing statement and materials On the facts and circumstances of the case in CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. Printed from counselvise.com about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant 6. law, Ld. Rs. 10,12,350/ 7. the CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note is valid in the eyes of law current legal and judicial precedent overwhelmingly requires separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and/or entity; the recording of a combined or consolidated satisfaction note has consistently been held to vitiate the proceedings under Income Tax Act. 3. Consequent to a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act on 17.03.2021 in the case of the “Rubberwala” Group, including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), proceedi were initiated in the case of the assessee. 3.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case filed its return of income 28.06.2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,86,790 search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short, “the Act”) was carried out on including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL). gathered that the about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the appellant 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 10,12,350/- u/s 69 of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note is valid in the eyes of law current legal and judicial precedent overwhelmingly requires separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and/or entity; the recording of a combined or consolidated satisfaction note has consistently been held to vitiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Consequent to a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act on 17.03.2021 in the case of the “Rubberwala” Group, including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL), proceedings under section 153C were initiated in the case of the assessee. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessee return of income for the year under consideration on 28.06.2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,86,790 search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short, “the Act”) was carried out on “Rubberwala including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL). During the search action, it was hat the assessee purchased a shop in ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 3 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram about opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statements were used against the and circumstances of the case in CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note is valid in the eyes of law, as current legal and judicial precedent overwhelmingly requires separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and/or entity; the recording of a combined or consolidated satisfaction note has consistently been held to section 153C of the Consequent to a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act on 17.03.2021 in the case of the “Rubberwala” Group, including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing ngs under section 153C are that the Assessee the year under consideration on 28.06.2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,86,790/-. Consequent to a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Rubberwala” group including its flagship concern M/s Rubberwala Housing & During the search action, it was shop in “Platinum Mall” Printed from counselvise.com Building, Girgaon, Mumbai and amount of Rs. 30,78,653/ paid in cash for was paid by the assessee in A.Y. 2019 amounting to Rs. 30,37,050/ Thereafter, proceedings under section 153C were initiated in the case of the assessee 4. During the search, certain statements of key per most notably, Shri Imran Ansari, an employee handling sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” A pen drive of 16 GB was retrieved from his residence, which he purportedly admitted contained excel files allegedly recording cash components received from various buyers. 5. Relying upon the above material and the statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show to the assessee. The Assessing Officer referred to the statement of Shri Imran Ansari who Rubberwala Group of entities since 2010 and was and registration of the shops in “Platinum Mall” and also revealed that the total price of the shops contained cash component and banking channel component components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group) and that such data related to shops was maintained by him in excel sheets. Building, Girgaon, Mumbai and amount of Rs. 30,78,653/ acquisition of the property. Further, the cash was paid by the assessee in A.Y. 2019-20 and A.Y. 2020 amounting to Rs. 30,37,050/- and Rs. 41,603/ proceedings under section 153C were initiated in the case of the assessee. During the search, certain statements of key per most notably, Shri Imran Ansari, an employee handling sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” A pen drive of 16 GB was retrieved from his residence, which he purportedly admitted contained excel files allegedly recording cash components received from various buyers. Relying upon the above material and the statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show to the assessee. The Assessing Officer referred to the statement of Shri Imran Ansari who stated that he had been working with Rubberwala Group of entities since 2010 and was and registration of the shops in “Platinum Mall” and also revealed that the total price of the shops contained cash component and banking channel component components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group) and that such data related to shops was maintained by him in excel sheets. ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 4 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram Building, Girgaon, Mumbai and amount of Rs. 30,78,653/- was acquisition of the property. Further, the cash 20 and A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs. 41,603/- respectively. proceedings under section 153C were initiated in During the search, certain statements of key persons— most notably, Shri Imran Ansari, an employee handling sale and registration of shops in the “Platinum Mall” were recorded. A pen drive of 16 GB was retrieved from his residence, which he purportedly admitted contained excel files allegedly recording Relying upon the above material and the statements of third parties, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. The Assessing Officer referred to the statement stated that he had been working with Rubberwala Group of entities since 2010 and was handling sale and registration of the shops in “Platinum Mall” and also revealed that the total price of the shops contained cash component and banking channel component and these components are decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director/CMD of RHIL and Promoter of Rubberwala Group) and that such data related to shops was maintained by him in excel sheets. Printed from counselvise.com Corroborating to the fact that data was being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB pen drive was retrieved from his possession which he accepted that it contained data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. He also revealed that he Abrar Ahmed who after receiving cash confirms back to Shri Imran Ansari to update the diaries and excel file. 6. The assessee categorically denied having paid any cash to any person, disputed knowledge of the individuals specifically asserted that the purchase was in joint ownership and his share, even if assumed, could not exceed one Crucially, he sought the statements and adverse material relied upon and requested opportunity to cross whose depositions were invoked. These requests were not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. search in case of RHIL Group and also the fact that RHIL Group had offered 8% of the overall unaccounted receipts. , the ld AO made an addition of 2019-20, treating the same as unexplained cash investment towards the shop allegedly purchased jointly by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal befor Corroborating to the fact that data was being maintained by Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB pen drive was retrieved from his possession which he accepted that it contained data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum Mall. He also revealed that he used to take the parties to Shri Abrar Ahmed who after receiving cash confirms back to Shri Imran Ansari to update the diaries and excel file. The assessee categorically denied having paid any cash to any person, disputed knowledge of the individuals specifically asserted that the purchase was in joint ownership and his share, even if assumed, could not exceed one Crucially, he sought the statements and adverse material relied upon and requested opportunity to cross-examine the person whose depositions were invoked. These requests were not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. Based on the finding of search in case of RHIL Group and also the fact that RHIL Group had offered 8% of the overall unaccounted receipts. , the ld AO dition of ₹30,37,050/- u/s 69 of the Act in A.Y. 20, treating the same as unexplained cash investment towards the shop allegedly purchased jointly by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 5 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram Corroborating to the fact that data was being maintained by Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the residence of Shri Imran Ansari, a 16GB pen drive was retrieved from his possession which he accepted that it contained data maintained for the sale of shops in Platinum used to take the parties to Shri Abrar Ahmed who after receiving cash confirms back to Shri Imran Ansari to update the diaries and excel file. The assessee categorically denied having paid any cash to any person, disputed knowledge of the individuals named, and specifically asserted that the purchase was in joint ownership and his share, even if assumed, could not exceed one-third. Crucially, he sought the statements and adverse material relied examine the persons whose depositions were invoked. These requests were not Based on the finding of search in case of RHIL Group and also the fact that RHIL Group had offered 8% of the overall unaccounted receipts. , the ld AO u/s 69 of the Act in A.Y. 20, treating the same as unexplained cash investment towards the shop allegedly purchased jointly by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the e the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed Printed from counselvise.com the said addition to the extent of 1/3 relevant shop amounting to Rs. 10,12,350/ and Rs. 13,868/ addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), th this appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the incriminating material found in the possession of Rubberwala Group does not implicate the assessee. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirmin not providing any statement of third party on which reliance was sought to be placed and even no cross examination has been granted. Moreover, the material or statement referred to is not an “evidence” at all agains and hence no reliance can be placed thereon without any corroborative or cogent evidence against the assessee. vehemently argued that addition u/s. 69 of the Act cannot be made or confirmed merely on guess work or as there has to be positive evidence against the assessee which has not been brought on record. He further relied on the decision of Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai [ITA no. 4742/4743/4744 / Mum / 2025] 8. We have heard rival submission of parties and perusal the relevant material on record. We find substantial merit in the the said addition to the extent of 1/3rd share of assessee in the relevant shop amounting to Rs. 10,12,350/- in A.Y. 2019 and Rs. 13,868/- in A.Y. 2020-21. Further, aggrieved by the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before us. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the incriminating material found in the possession of Rubberwala Group does not implicate the assessee. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the stand of Assessing Officer despite not providing any statement of third party on which reliance was sought to be placed and even no cross examination has been granted. Moreover, the material or statement referred to is not an “evidence” at all against the assessee in the eyes of law and hence no reliance can be placed thereon without any corroborative or cogent evidence against the assessee. vehemently argued that addition u/s. 69 of the Act cannot be made or confirmed merely on guess work or as there has to be positive evidence against the assessee which has not been brought on record. He further relied on the decision of Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai [ITA no. 4742/4743/4744 / Mum / 2025]. We have heard rival submission of parties and perusal the relevant material on record. We find substantial merit in the ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 6 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram share of assessee in the in A.Y. 2019-20 21. Further, aggrieved by the e assessee has preferred Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the incriminating material found in the possession of Rubberwala Group does not implicate the assessee. Further, the ld. CIT(A) g the stand of Assessing Officer despite not providing any statement of third party on which reliance was sought to be placed and even no cross examination has been granted. Moreover, the material or statement referred to is t the assessee in the eyes of law and hence no reliance can be placed thereon without any corroborative or cogent evidence against the assessee. It is vehemently argued that addition u/s. 69 of the Act cannot be made or confirmed merely on guess work or assumptions and there has to be positive evidence against the assessee which has not been brought on record. He further relied on the decision of Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai [ITA We have heard rival submission of parties and perusal the relevant material on record. We find substantial merit in the Printed from counselvise.com contentions of the assessee. It is a well that where an addition is sought to be made the statement of a third party or upon material allegedly belonging to or relating to the assessee, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded an effective opportunity to cross relied upon. Failure to 8.1 In the case alleged incriminating material i.e. excel sheets and statements, have third-party premises and n on-money by the assessee like any r issued by the assessee etc searched person. excel sheet cannot, by themselves, constitute substantive evidence unless duly corroborated, authenticated the assessee by independent and cogent material. No corroborative evidence of actual cash payment by the assessee exists. Neither the pen drive nor the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh were supplied to CIT(A)’s approach of merely restricting the addition to 1/3rd does not cure the fundamental infirmity of absence of legally admissible evidence against the assessee. suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Third-party admissions, untested and uncorroborated, cannot contentions of the assessee. It is a well-settled principle of that where an addition is sought to be made solely tement of a third party or upon material allegedly belonging to or relating to the assessee, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements are relied upon. Failure to do so vitiates the assessment itself. In the case alleged incriminating material i.e. excel sheets and statements, have emanated exclus party premises and no document evidencing payment of by the assessee like any receipt of cash payment issued by the assessee etc was found from the possession of the . In our opinion, mere entries in a third excel sheet cannot, by themselves, constitute substantive evidence unless duly corroborated, authenticated the assessee by independent and cogent material. No corroborative evidence of actual cash payment by the assessee exists. Neither the pen drive nor the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh were supplied to the assessee. CIT(A)’s approach of merely restricting the addition to 1/3rd does not cure the fundamental infirmity of absence of legally admissible evidence against the assessee. It is trite law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. ty admissions, untested and uncorroborated, cannot ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 7 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram settled principle of law solely based upon tement of a third party or upon material allegedly belonging to or relating to the assessee, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded an effective examine the persons whose statements are do so vitiates the assessment itself. In the case alleged incriminating material i.e. pen drive, emanated exclusively from o document evidencing payment of eceipt of cash payment was found from the possession of the ere entries in a third-party excel sheet cannot, by themselves, constitute substantive evidence unless duly corroborated, authenticated, and linked to the assessee by independent and cogent material. No corroborative evidence of actual cash payment by the assessee exists. Neither the pen drive nor the statements of Shri Imran the assessee. The CIT(A)’s approach of merely restricting the addition to 1/3rd does not cure the fundamental infirmity of absence of legally It is trite law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. ty admissions, untested and uncorroborated, cannot Printed from counselvise.com form the sole basis of an addition under section 69. The Revenue has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to bring on record credible, independent, and cogent material establishing that the assessee and above the recorded consideration. Tribunal in the case of assessee DCIT (supra) held that : “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 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 17.0 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 s 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 c 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, 153C order was 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 ben 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 reproduced as under: form the sole basis of an addition under section 69. The Revenue has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to bring on record credible, independent, and cogent material establishing that the assessee made any payment in cash over and above the recorded consideration. The coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of assessee Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. held that :- We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also he 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 17.0 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 payment of cash. We noticed that during the search a pendrive with the details of cash transactions with respect to Rubberwala group was which was confirmed through statement of Shri Imran Ansari recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and on this basis, 153C order was 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 of Rajesh Jain case which is mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in its order and the same is reproduced as under: ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 8 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram form the sole basis of an addition under section 69. The Revenue has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to bring on record credible, independent, and cogent material made any payment in cash over The coordinate Bench of Pravin Khetaramm Purohit v. We have heard the arguments for both the parties and have also he 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 Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL), its promoter and director-Shri Tabrez Shaikh, and a key employee of Rubberwala group Shri Imran hops in “Platinum Mall” project of RHIL were covered. Among others, statement of these persons were recorded on oath onvarious dates during the course of search as well as post search proceedings. The employee of Rubberwala ash 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 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 ch 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 Printed from counselvise.com 5.1. On 17.03.2021, the residential 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 Ac of these persons were recorded on oath on various dates during search as well as post search proceedings. 5.2. During the action on Rubberwala Group, among other, residence (at 109, 2nd Floor, Prabhat Sadan, 109/120 RBC Marg, Ag Central - 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 Ansar M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd (RHIL). In response, Shri 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 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 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 c 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 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 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 Platinu 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 Rubber 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, nces 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 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, Ag 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 response, Shri Imran Ansari stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group of entities since 2010 and inter-alia handling sale and regis 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 response to Q. no. 15 categorically revealed that the total price of the shops contains cash component and banking channel component, and these c 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 in excel sheets. Corroborating to the fact that data is being maintained by Shri Imran Ansari in excel sheet, during search proceedings at the 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 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. ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 9 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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, nces of various key persons including its promoter and director Shri a key employee of Rubberwala group handling sale & registration of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of t. Among others, statement 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 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, i 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 & 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 “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 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 . 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 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 m 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 wala Group. Printed from counselvise.com 5.4. 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 maintaine 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 i spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns 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 therefo 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 Bha 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 procee 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 n mentioned above i.e., 9892196071 against all 27 shops, is of Shri Rajesh Jain. 5.5. 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 p 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 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 sai 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 Shri Rajesh Jain/assessee only………………… 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 maintained in these excel sheets, and in this regard, it is important to mention that the sheet “Master” is so elaborate that the data i spread across 98 columns. Shri Imran Ansari has explained all 98 columns 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 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 Bha 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 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 n 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 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 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 ementioned, 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………………… ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 10 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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” d. 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 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 re 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 Imran Ansari) to be booked by the assessee only. Also, ShriTabrez Ahmed Shaikh, Director and Promoter of the RHIL, while deposing statement dings 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 Regarding the frequency of updating the said excel file/sheet, Shri Imran Ansari, in response to Q. no. 25, stated that this sheet is ayment 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 handing cash for the Rubberwala Group). ShriAbrar Ahmed, after receiving the cash confirms to Shri Imran Ansari d 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 ementioned, 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 Ansari used to follow up with Printed from counselvise.com 10. 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 ident 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 assessee. The decision rendered by us in AY 2018 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 issue. 13. In the appeal filed by the as 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 on sale of various shops were found. The employee of Rubberwala group confirmed that the cash has been collected from the buyers of shops. Ho 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/ in AY 2020-21. The LdCIT(A) also confirmed the same. 15. The ld A.R submitted that t party statement and documents found from the premises of third party. As per the deposition made by the employee of Rubberwala group, the buyers were given a diary, in which, the details of cash received were acknowledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simp 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 cas 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 mad 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 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 ident reproduced herein below: 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 ssee. 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 CIT(A) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala 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 owledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simp 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 notice that the AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 11 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 The appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2020-21 is with regard to 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 19 and 2019-20 on an 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 sessee, the addition of alleged cash in respect of purchase of shop confirmed by Ld CIT(A) is being assailed. 14. We noticed earlier that the assessee had purchased a shop in the commercial premises developed by Rubberwala 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 wever, 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. he 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 owledged. The Ld A.R submitted the search officials did not find any such diary with the assessee during the course of search operation conducted in his hands. Hence the statement so given by the employee stands disproved. He submitted that the AO has simply relied upon third party statement without bringing any independent material to support the same. The AO also did not provide the opportunity of cross examination despite being asked by the assessee. Accordingly, by placing reliance on e 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 e 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 Printed from counselvise.com examination to assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs.18,64,200/ take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench o in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08 decided as under: 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rub 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. We are of the view that the above said decision of Hon present case. 11. From the above we f 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 o 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 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 /pendrive was confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was confronted. 13. Therefore, in our view, the information if 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 primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice. examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs.18,64,200/- cannot be sustained. In this regard, we may take support from the decision rendered by SMC bench o 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:- 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 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 pplication 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 o 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 ssee 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 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. ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 12 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 2016), wherein an identical issue was 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross berwala 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 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 ‟ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the ind 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 pplication 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 Although it has been claimed in the order of assessment that the ssee 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 have been corroborated with any other evidence. Since the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, if any, based on which , was issued, in our view, it hampers the primary and fundamental requirement of natural justice. Printed from counselvise.com 14. 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 the case of third party therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of pendrive are correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on 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 asse 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 below: 10. 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 lies in a search 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 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 employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on 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 / sho of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the asses 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 Assess 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 corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of pendrive are correct and authenticated to the extent assessee paid ‘on- money’ in cash, no 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 asse 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 Assessing 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 section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, Director and Promoter of the Group, wherein, the details of on– money paid by bu 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 which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on–money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the asses 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 ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 13 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram As far as the information claimed in pendrive is concerned, the same was not found from the possession of the assessee but was found 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 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 Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007– 08) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the issue in being reproduced herein I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the genesis of the addition made of 42 lakh on money in cash towards purchase of a flat 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 notice dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in 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 statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 14th March 2014, Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, has admitted receipt of on–money in cash ps. 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 adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also ing Officer for allowing her to cross–examine Shri Printed from counselvise.com 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 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 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 wa 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 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 him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the A 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 Officer has not pro 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 against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. 11. Even otherwise also, th 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 statemen 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 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 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 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 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 wa 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 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 n 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 A 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 against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on–money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statemen recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on–money in cash, no addition can be made und ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 14 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page–53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and on account of on–money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental requirement of rules of natural justice. It is well settled proposition of law that if the Assessing Officer intends to utilize any adverse material for n issue against the assessee he is required to not only confront such adverse materials to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing vided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross–examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the addition made cannot be sustained. e 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 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 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 money in cash, no addition can be made under Printed from counselvise.com 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 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( 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 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 the payment of on from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute concerning similar transa the Tribunal in case of Shri Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT (supra) has held as under: …….. 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 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 collect 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 deleted. 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( from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on–money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and bring on record the relevant fact and material to conclusively prove the payment of on–money by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration. Apparently, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any such evidence / material 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 under: Reliance has also been placed in the case of Monika Anand Gupta I.T.A. No. 5561/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12)whereas coordinat 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 CIT vs P.V Kalyana sundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collect 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 ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 15 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 establish that assessee has paid on–money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further 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 from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on–money in cash. Notably, while dealing with a case involving similar nature of dispute ction 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 money payment has been done in thiscase without any corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based 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 Evidence Act regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be Printed from counselvise.com 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 Mr. Suraj Parmar, one of the promoters of Cosmos Group under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroboration. Moreover, statement or a 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 corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from t 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. Conseq 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 indicate the name of the assessee. 19. Apart, the AO during the course of assessment also failed to provide the opportunity to cross examine 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. 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 r the order a nullity’. case of Mrs. Mamta Sharad Gupta, ITA No.1553/M/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12, wherein the coordinate bench has held as 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 Parmar of Cosmos Group and not against the assessee without any corroboration. Excel sheet alleged to have been recovered from t 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 ani Vs.ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/2022. From the records we also noticed that no statement was provided to the assessee, and none of the persons, whose statements were relied were produced for cross-examination. Even the extract of the statement mentioned in the assessment order does not indicate the 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 r the order a nullity’. ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 16 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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) ition 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. ny 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 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 uently, 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 ani Vs.ITO, ITA No.1665/M/2018, Padmashrree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 3264 to 3268/Mum/2022. From 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 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com 20. 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 addition/disallowance bad in law’ 21. In the case of H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissionerof tax, Mumbai under In the light of the fact that the mo account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least 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 such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed 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 furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose material, these were denied to him. 22. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed 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 bel 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 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 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 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 material, these 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 ITA No. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 17 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram 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 of cross examination of the third party renders the In the case of H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissionerof Income- 72taxmann.com110 (Bombay) wherein it was held as ney was advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least 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 such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, 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 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 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 onging 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 the addition has already been Printed from counselvise.com 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. 2020-21, the decision rendered for A.Y. 2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2020 addition confirmed 11. In the result, appeal Order pronounced in t (KAVITHA RAJ 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// deleted on merits, therefore all other grounds rendered academic and require no adjudication. Since the facts and circumstances of the case are identical 21, the decision rendered for A.Y. 2019 ll apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2020-21 as well and the confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed. ounced in the open Court on 23 Sd/- A RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT 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. 5556 & 5552/MUM/2025 18 Mr. Mishra Ganesh Ram deleted on merits, therefore all other grounds rendered Since the facts and circumstances of the case are identical 21, the decision rendered for A.Y. 2019-20 above 21 as well and the allowed. 23/12/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "