MOHAMMED FAKHRE ALAM SHAIKH,MUMBAI V. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8766/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by different assessees against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Mumbai, concerning the assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21. The primary issue in these appeals was the addition of unaccounted cash payments allegedly made for the purchase of shops in the Platinum Mall project by the assessees. The additions were based on statements and Excel sheets retrieved during a search and seizure operation at the premises of the Rubberwala Group and its associates. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the lack of direct incriminating material against the assessees and the failure to provide cross-examination opportunities, leading to the conclusion that the additions were unjustified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847092 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Veena Hiralal Mehta Vs. DCIT, Rajesh Jain v. DCIT, Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO, Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Dhiren Shah vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Kausik Nanubhai Majithia, Sumathi Janardhana Kurup vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMA SHANKAR PRASAD; LD.; OBSERVING
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAIN; LD.
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 132; 131; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. Nos.8811,8812,8813 &,8814/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18,2018-19,2019-20 & 2020-21 Mohammed Sufyan Surti, 267, Nagdevi Street, 2 nd Floor, Room No.25, Mandvi S.O (Mumbai), Mumbai – 400003. PAN No. BCDPS 8944 R Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Central Circle – 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Impugned Order: 17.10.2025 AND ITA. Nos.8759, 8760 & 8761/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jawed Husen Mohammed, 32/34 Chass Manzil, Sarang Street, B.P. Lane, S.O. Babhul Wandi, Mumbai - 400003. PAN No. BEAPM 9036 B Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Central Circle – 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Impugned Order: 17.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 AND ITA. Nos.8762, 8763 & 8764/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mohamed Musadiq Jawed Khatri, Flat No.503, 5th Floor, Chaas Manzil, 32/34, Sarang Street, B.P.Lane S.O, Babhul Wandi, Mumbai - 400003. PAN No. DMHPK 2160 K Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Central Circle – 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Impugned Order: 17.10.2025 AND ITA. Nos.8765, 8766 & 8767/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 Mohammed Fakhre Alam Shaikh, New Usmaniya Washing, Noor Mansion, 111 Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, B.P.Lane S.O, Babhul Wandi, Mumbai. PAN No. BHOPS 3293 R Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Central Circle – 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Impugned Order: 17.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 3 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 AND ITA. Nos.8867, 8868, 8869 & 8870/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Mohammed Azim Mohammed Salim Khan, BLDG No.135/137, Noorani BLDG, Room No.9, M A Road Agripada, Mumbai Central H.O, Mumbai, Mumbai - 400008. PAN No. DGKPK 2617 A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Central Circle – 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Impugned Order: 17.10.2025 Present for: Assessee by : Mr. Prateek Jain, Ld. Adv. Revenue by : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. CIT D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: These appeals have been preferred by the different Assessee’s against the respective separate orders mentioned above, impugned herein, passed by the respective Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short ‘the Act’] for the respective Assessment Years mentioned above. Printed from counselvise.com 4 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 2. These appeals are having involved identical facts and issues except variation in amounts and therefore for the sake of brevity the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration the facts and issued involved in ITA No.8811/M/2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 as the lead case and the result of the same should be applicable Mutatis-Mutandis to the all appeals under consideration. 3. Coming to the ITA No.8811/MUM/2025, it is observed that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on dated 17.03.2021, on Rubberwala Group and its associates, including in the residence of Shri Imran Ashfaque Ansari, wherein his statement was recorded on oath at his residence and a 16GB pen drive was also retrieved from his possession. Mr. Ansari in his statement stated that he has been working with Rubberwala group since 2010 and inter-alia dealing with sales and registration of the shops in Platinum Mall Project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. (RHIL). Mr. Ansari also explained the complete procedure of the sale of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project and revealed that total price of shops contains cash and banking channel components, which were decided by Shri Tabrez Shaikh (Director of RHIL and promoter of Rubberwala Group). Mr. Ansari also stated that data related to shops is maintained by him in excel sheets and stored in pen drive. 4. Thus, the AO on the basis of aforesaid search and seizure proceedings carried out u/s 132 of the Act, issued a combined notice dated 03.03.2024 u/s Printed from counselvise.com 5 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 153(C) of the Act to the Assessee and show caused the Assessee to explain the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the AYs. 2017-18 allegedly paid in cash during the year under consideration, over and above the purchase price of shop bearing Shop No. 06, admeasuring carpet area of 54 Sq. Mtrs. situated at 1st floor of Platinum mall, having been paid in instalments and to the tune of Rs.16,28,100/- in total, through banking channel, as against the stamp duty value (circle rate) of Rs.11,30,772/-. 5. The Assessee in response to the said show cause notice submitted its reply, inter-alia claiming that he has not paid any cash amount over and above the consideration fixed for purchase of shop. 6. The Assessing Officer though considered the aforesaid claim of the Assessee that he has not made any cash payment to RHIL or the Rubberwala Group, as mentioned in the show-cause notice, however, found the said claim of the Assessee, as not acceptable, mainly on the following reasons: “1. Shri Imran Ansari, a key employee of the Rubberwala Group, who was handling sale and registration of shops in \"Platinum Mall\", accepted that he had maintained Excel sheets in which details of every person who paid cash in respect of purchase of shops on cash, was mentioned. 2. The Promoter and Director of the RHIL Group, Shri Tabrez Shaikh, accepted to take cash from individuals for sale of shops in Platinum Mall and also offered income @ 8% of the said cash, as non-accounted receipts in his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on dated 19.08.2021. Printed from counselvise.com 6 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 3. A 16 GB pen drive containing the data related to shops as maintained by Mr. Ansari in Excel sheets was recovered from Mr. Ansari during search proceedings at his residence. 7. The Assessing Officer, on the aforesaid reasons, held “that the Assessee during the AY under consideration has made the investment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unrecorded in the books of accounts maintained by the Assessee and also the Assessee had offered no explanation for the nature and source of such investment” and ultimately added the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as unaccounted cash paid against the purchase of shop during the year under consideration, under section 69 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 21.03.2024 under section 153C of the Act. 8. The Assessee, thus, being aggrieved against the decision of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 /-, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner by raising various grounds. 9. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the assessment order and the claim of the Assessee specifically to the effect that he has not made any cash amount over and above the sale consideration amount, as reflected in the sale deed and the AO has also not provided the cross examination of the witnesses, on whose statements has made reliance. However, the Ld. Commissioner ultimately affirmed the aforesaid addition by dismissing appeal of the Assessee. 10. Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved, has preferred instant appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 7 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 11. The Assessee before us has claimed that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not specified or depicted the Excel sheet and/or incriminating material, date, mode and source of alleged on-money payments. Further, the Excel sheet is neither made part of the assessment order nor any communication issued to the Assessee. Further, the date of creation of Excel sheet and by the person who created and the source of data was never established, rendering the same as unreliable and unauthenticated evidence. There is no corroborative material linked with the Assessee to the alleged cash payment. Hence, the documents relied on by the Assessing Officer cannot carry evidentiary value. The Assessee specifically denied cash payment before the Assessing Officer and asked for cross-examination before the Ld. Commissioner as well. However, both the authorities below neither provided the incriminating documents nor any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements have been used for making the addition under consideration. Further, the Assessee had purchased the property under consideration on a consideration which is admittedly more than the stamp duty valuation. 11.1 The Assessee further claimed that the facts and issues are exactly similar, except variation in amounts, as deliberated upon by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Veena Hiralal Mehta Vs. DCIT (ITA no 5492 & 5493/Mum/2025 decided on 06.02.2026), wherein the Hon'ble Bench dealt with the identical issue on the basis of identical facts and circumstances and allegation and evidence and the fact of not providing the Printed from counselvise.com 8 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 opportunity of cross examination to the Assessee and ultimately deleted the identical addition by allowing the appeal of the Assessee. 11.2 On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that show-cause notice along with the relevant details and documents was provided to the Assessee. Further, in the satisfaction note, all the details were mentioned and communicated to the Assessee, which also contains the Excel sheet detailing the shop number, area, level, total amount, etc. Further there is direct evidence for making the addition, such as statement of MR. Ansari, excel sheets, pen drive and a fact that Director of RHIL has offered income @ 8% of the unaccounted cash component and therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below, cannot be faulted with. 11.3 The Ld. D.R. has also relied on the admission made by the promoter and director of RHIL qua receiving of on-money and execution of Agreement for Sale by him and therefore, has claimed that the person who admitted the receiving of on-money has also executed the sale deed and therefore, his statement cannot be discarded. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that from the Excel sheet as produced by him before this Hon’ble Court, two components are mentioned, one relating to the alleged cash payment and second relating to the payments made through cheques/RTGS. The payments made by cheques/RTGS are correlated with the assessment order and therefore the cash component as recorded in the Excel sheet, cannot be sidelined. The Ld. D.R. further claimed that the Assessee has not specifically asked for the incriminating documents and/or opportunity for cross-examination and Printed from counselvise.com 9 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 therefore the addition, which is otherwise based on incriminating statement, admission and material/documents, cannot be doubted. 11.4 The Ld. CIT D.R. further submitted that in the cases relied on by the Assessee, the Hon’ble Benches of the Tribunal have dealt with exceptional circumstances, as no cash vouchers/receipts/ ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found in those cases. However, this case is contrary. Thus, the instant case cannot be equated on similar footings, as that of the cases relied on by the Assessee. 12. Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record and giving thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival claims of the parties, it is observed that from the assessment order that it clearly appears that the Assessing Officer made the addition mainly on the basis of the excel sheet retrieved from pen drive recovered from the premises of Mr. Ansari, the statement of Mr. Ansari, wherein he admitted receipt of the cash component by the company, and the statement of the Director of the RHIL Group, wherein he admitted statement made and the Excel sheet prepared by Mr. Ansari, as true and offered income 8% of the cash amounts/component, as unaccounted receipts. 13. Admittedly, in this case as well, during the search and seizure operation carried out in the premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by Printed from counselvise.com 10 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 the Assessee and any incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed before the Assessing Officer that he has not made any cash payment for the shop purchased by him. 14. Even otherwise, the Assessee had purchased the shop/property under consideration for a consideration/value, more than the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, as depicted in Sale Agreement. Further, the Assessing Officer also failed to brought on record any comparable case of high/more valued property in the same shopping mall, so as to ascertain the actual rate of transactions made. 15. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as no incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, such as cash voucher, receipt, ledger or any document signed by the Assessee, was ever found during the search or post-search proceedings, either from the Rubberwala Group or Mr. Ansari, whose statement has been made the foundation for making the addition, and therefore, in that eventuality, the onus shifts upon the Revenue Department to substantiate/corroborate the evidence collected during the search proceedings and to offer an opportunity for confrontation or cross- examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon, while making the addition. Which the AO failed to substantiate the evidence collected and also failed to give any opportunity of cross examinations of the witnesses, Printed from counselvise.com 11 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 whose statements were relied on and/or made a foundation for making the addition. 16. We further observe that identical shops in same Shopping Mall i.e. Platinum Mall \"were also purchased by various other Assessees, wherein in their cases as well, identical additions were made, and therefore their cases travelled upto the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, who dealt with the cases in detail in the context of the same search and seizure operation, same pen drive, same statements and same offering of income at the rate of 8% on the unaccounted cash components by the Director of the RHIL Group and execution of Sale agreement by the said promoter. The Tribunal ultimately deleted the identical additions. 17. As observed above, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Veena Hiralal Mehta (supra), has also dealt with identical addition on the basis of identical facts and circumstances and evidence and ultimately deleted the same by observing and holding as under: “18. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the assessment order, it clearly appears that the Assessing Officer made the addition mainly on the basis of the pen drive recovered from the premises of Mr. Ansari, the statement of Mr. Ansari wherein he admitted receipt of the cash component by the company, and the statement of the Director of the RHIL Group wherein he admitted statement made and the Excel sheet prepared by Mr. Ansari as true and offered income 8% of the cash amounts/component, as unaccounted receipts. Printed from counselvise.com 12 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 19. The Assessee, at the outset, had submitted that in the assessment order, it nowhere appears in the assessment order as to what material and/or which Excel sheet the addition has been made. Further, the Assessing Officer made the addition without confronting the incriminating material and/or without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were mainly relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise there is no independent material available on record to substantiate the addition made and affirmed by the authorities below. 20. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was provided with the show-cause notice dated 17.01.2024 along with the relevant details and documents. Further, in the satisfaction note, all the details are mentioned and communicated to the assessee, which also contains the Excel sheets, detailing the shop number, area, level, total amount, etc. Further there is direct evidence for making the addition, such as statement of MR. Ansari, excel sheets, pen drive and a fact that Director of RHIL has offered income @ 8% of the unaccounted cash component and therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below cannot be faulted with. 21. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival claims of the parties. Admittedly, during the search and seizure operation carried out in the premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed before the Assessing Officer that she has not made any cash payment for the purchase of the shops purchased by her. 22. Even otherwise, the Assessee had purchased the shop/property under consideration for a consideration/value, more than the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Further, the Assessing Officer also failed to brought on record any comparable case in the same shopping mall, so as to ascertain the actual rate of transactions made. Printed from counselvise.com 13 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 23. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as no incriminating material directly connected with the assessee, such as cash voucher, receipt, ledger or any document signed by the Assessee, was ever found during the search or post-search proceedings, either from the Rubberwala Group or Mr. Ansari, whose statement has been made the foundation for making the addition, in that eventuality, the onus shifts upon the Revenue Department to substantiate/corroborate the evidence collected during the search proceedings and to offer an opportunity for confrontation or cross- examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon, while making the addition. Which the Revenue failed to substantiate the evidence collected and also failed to give any opportunity of cross examinations of the witnesses whose statements were relied on and/or made a foundation for making the addition. 24. We further observe that identical shops in same\" Shopping Mall i.e. Platinum Mall\" were also purchased by various other Assessees, wherein in their cases as well, identical additions were made, and therefore their cases travelled upto the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, who dealt with the cases in detail in the context of the same search and seizure operation, same pen drive, same statements and same offering of income at the rate of 8% on the unaccounted cash components by the Director of the RHIL Group. 25. The Hon'ble co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Rajesh Jain v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 3842 & Ors. 2023, ITAT Mumbai, order dated 26-11-2024), also dealt with identical addition made on the basis of third-party statements and pen drive and excel entries, allegedly recovered from the same search and seizure operation as involved in this case and ultimately deleted the identical addition by observing as under: - \"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 Printed from counselvise.com 14 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment. Further, the AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, even after the said request was made by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view 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 of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Naren Premchang Nagda vs. ITO (IT Appeal No.3265/Mum/2015 dated 08-07-2016), wherein an identical issue was decided as under: - …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………….. 17. We also notice that the AO did not provide opportunity to cross examine the persons from Rubberwala group, on whose statements the AO had placed reliance upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015)(62 taxmann.com 3)(SC) that not providing opportunity to cross examine is a serious flaw and it will make the order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that the above said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court shall apply to the facts of the present case. 18.……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………….. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the addition of Rs.18,64,200/- made by the AO cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete this addition.\" Printed from counselvise.com 15 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 26. The Hon'ble co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Pravin Khetaramm Purohit (or Parveen Kheta Ram) vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 4742 to 4744/M/2025, decided on 15.10.2025) also dealt with identical addition based on the same search and seizure and material recovered and statements recorded and ultimately deleted the identical addition by observing and holding as under: \"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-examination. Even the extract of the 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 of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the revenue which resulted in 'breach of principles of natural justice'. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that 'failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity'. 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 of cross examination of the third 20 party renders the addition/disallowance bad in law'. 21. In the case of H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai 72 taxmann.com110 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: Printed from counselvise.com 16 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 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. 22. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and legal prepositions as discussed by us above, we direct the AO to delete the addition.\" 27. We further observe that the Tribunal in case of Heena Dashrath Jhanglani ITA no.1665/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) has also dealt with identical addition made on the basis of Pen drive recovered during the search and without any corroborative material qua alleged cash on money and ultimately deleted the addition by observing and holding as under: \"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-money in cash towards purchase of a flat lies in a search and seizure operation conducted in case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on-money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Printed from counselvise.com 17 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 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 onmoney 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 towards sale of flats / shops. Thus, it is clear that except these two pieces of evidences the Assessing Officer had no other evidence on record which demonstrates that the assessee had paid on-money in cash for purchase of the flat. It is further relevant to observe, from the assessment stage itself the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to provide him with all adverse materials and full text of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani. The assessee had also requested the Assessing Officer for allowing her to cross-examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani and other parties whose statements were relied upon. Apparently, this request of the assessee was not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee took up the aforesaid issue before the first appellate authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in letter dated 18th July 2016, had clearly directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee all adverse materials / documentary evidences available with him indicating payment of on-money. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 23th June 2017, a copy of which is at Page-53 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer has completely avoided the issue and there is no mention whether the assessee was provided with all the adverse material and if, not so, whether he has provided them to the assessee as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is patent and obvious that the addition of 42 lakh made on account of on-money payment in cash is without complying with the primary and fundamental 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 Printed from counselvise.com 18 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 to the assessee but also offer him a reasonable opportunity to rebut / contradict the contents of the adverse material. Further, the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, for making the disputed addition. However, it is the allegation of the assessee, which prima-facie appears to be correct, that the Assessing Officer has not provided the full text of such statement recorded and has also not allowed the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, and other persons whose statements were relied upon. This, in my view, is in gross violation of rules of natural justice and against the basic principle of law. In this context, I may refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Nikhil Vinod Agarwal (supra). Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the additior made cannot be sustained. 11. Even otherwise also, the addition made is unsustainable because of the following reasons. As discussed earlier in the order, the basis for addition on account of on-money is the information contained in the pen drive found during the search and seizure operation and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. As regards the information contained in the pen drive, it is the contention of the assessee that the said pen drive was not found from the possession of the assessee but in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of a third party. Therefore, in absence of further corroborative evidence to establish that the contents of the pen drive are correct and authentic to the extent that the assessee paid on-money in cash, no addition can be made under section 69B of the Act. Further contention of the assessee is that in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shi Niranjan Hirandani has not made any reference to the assessee, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish that assessee has paid on-money in cash, no addition can be made. I find substantial merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. In my view, neither the information contained in the pen drive nor the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani are enough to conclusively establish the factum of payment of on-money by the assessee. At best, they can raise a doubt or suspicion against the conduct of the assessee triggering further enquiry / investigation to find out and Printed from counselvise.com 19 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 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 on record to prove the payment of on-money by the assessee. More so, when the assessee from the very beginning has stoutly denied payment of on-money in cash.\" 28. We further observe that the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal consisting both of us, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhiren Shah [2025] 180 Taxmann.com 370 (Mumbai 4294/M/2024, decided on 27.10.2025, has also dealt with an identical addition Trib.), in ITA No. made on the basis of allegation of cash paid over and above the sale value of an immovable property having been paid through banking channel and ultimately affirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by observing and holding as under:- \"7. We have carefully perused the records and have also taken note of the rival submissions. We are of the considered view that there is no authenticity of the impugned screenshot which does not bear any signature of government authority. It appears to be a rough calculation only. Moreover, we find that the AO has also not brought on record any comparable case of the said locality so as to ascertain the actual rates of transactions made. The market rate adopted by the AO is contrary the Stamp Duty rate which is government fixed rate of the property under consideration that has been brushed aside by the AO without finding any infirmity in the same. Moreover, no investigation has been made with the Registration office/Stamp Duty authorities in this regard but he made the addition of such a huge sum without making any effort to corroborate his findings. The WhatsApp chat/post is nothing more than rough working communication between buyer's son and his accountant. It does not specifically mention either the name of the assessee or even the impugned property transaction. The assessee was searched by the Department. However, no corroborative evidence of receipt of any cash over and above the disclosed amount has been brought on record by the AO. Printed from counselvise.com 20 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 7.1 The AO has placed considerable reliance on the digital evidence in the form of chats. However, we find that the order is completely silent on twhether the requirements of section 65B of the India Evidence Act, 1972 have been satisfied or not since the provisions require that to be admissible, they must be accompanied with a valid certificate under section 65B(4). Mere screenshots or forwarded chats have no evidentiary value since they are susceptible to tampering or fabrication. Unless the source devise is produced or section 65B certificate is produced, such chats cannot be relied upon. 7.2 In view of the discussion above, we hold that the addition made by the AO is based more on conjectures and surmises rather than on concrete evidence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the appellate orderdeleting the addition made. Consequently, all the grounds of appeal which are interlinked to each other are hereby dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 29. We reiterate that the identical addition has elaborately been dealt with by the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases referred to above, which is otherwise unsustainable on the aforesaid analyzation made by us independently specific to the effect that no incriminating material directly connected with the assessee, such as cash voucher, receipt, ledger or any document signed by the Assessee, was ever found during the search or post-search proceedings, either from the Rubberwala Group or Mr. Ansari, whose statement has been made the foundation for making the addition, and thus in that eventuality, the onus shifts upon the Revenue Department to substantiate/corroborate the evidence collected during the search proceedings and to offer an opportunity for confrontation or cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon, while making the addition. The AO though provided the relevant material collected during the search Printed from counselvise.com 21 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 proceedings but the AO in the Assessment order nowhere mentioned such material/documents, except as referred to above such as pen derive, excel sheet and statement of Mr. Ansari etc., The AO also failed to substantiate the evidence collected and give any opportunity of cross examinations of the witnesses, whose statements were relied on and/or made a foundation for making the addition without considering peculiar fact that the Assessee otherwise has purchased the Shop/property under consideration on a consideration/value, which is otherwise more than the stamp duty value, as determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Further, the Assessing Officer also failed to brought on record any comparable case in the same shopping mall, so as to ascertain the actual rate of transactions made. Thus, in cumulative effects, the addition under consideration is deleted by allowing the appeal i.e. ITA No. 5492/M/2025 filed by the assessee. 18. We further observe that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad vs. Kausik Nanubhai Majithia (R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024) has also considered identical addition made on the basis of Excel sheets found from the computer of a person associated with a company namely Navratna Organizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (in short, ‘the Developer), in the premises of whom the search was conducted. As per the details of payment made by the Assessee to the developer as mentioned in the Excel sheets, the tax has been paid by the developer before the Settlement Commission. Thus, the Revenue before the Hon’ble High Court has claimed that payment of tax by the developer, in whose premises search was conducted, before the Settlement Commission with respect to the amount entered in the Excel sheets found from the possession of the person working with the developer, was sufficient proof of the transaction between the Assessee and the developer. Printed from counselvise.com 22 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 18.1 The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has considered the peculiar fact that the Excel sheet, on the basis of which proceedings were initiated under section 153C of the Act, was without any signature and there was no corroborative material to substantiate the said document. Further, the nature of the document has not been explained by the Assessing Officer, while proceeding against the Assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged seized material were not provided to the Assessee and hence the entire proceedings under section 153C of the Act stood vitiated. The Hon’ble High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal by observing and holding as under: - “3. We find inherent fallacy in this submission, inasmuch as, there is no basis for conducting proceedings against the assessee merely for the fact that the developer had paid tax on the amount shown in the excel-sheet. There is no adjudication with regard to the payment, which was shown in the excel-sheet to the effect that the same was actually paid by the assessee to the developer. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings returned by the CITA and ITAT are that the document found from the premises of the third party namely excel-sheet, which is the basis of the proceedings was without any signature and there is no corroborative material to substantiate the said document. The nature of the document has not been explained by the Assessing Officer while proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated. 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not successfully demolish the facts, which are recorded concurrently by the CITA and ITAT. 5. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises to entertain this appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com 23 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 19. We further observe that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sumathi Janardhana Kurup vs. Income Tax Officer [(2024) 160 taxmann.com 40 (Bombay)] has also dealt with identical issue, as involved in the instant case, wherein the builder namely M/s. Lucina Land Development Ltd. {in short ‘Lucina’} allotted/sold a flat to the Assessee and accepted/admitted having received cash from different customers, including the Assessee and has offered the amount received as on-money, to tax, before the Settlement Commission. 20. The Hon’ble High Court by considering the peculiar facts that the Assessee has denied payment of any cash to Lucina, held that, the entire basis i.e. the letter received from Lucina accepting the receipt of cash amount and offering the same to tax before the Settlement Commission, is alone not enough. The Hon’ble High Court further held that if the amount of Rs.20,91,200/- received from Assessee has been offered to tax by ‘Lucina’ before the Settlement Commission, then how the same amount can be taxed again in the hands of the Assessee. Thus, Hon’ble High Court on the aforesaid reasons, ultimately quashed the order and notice under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act respectively. For brevity and ready reference, the conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “10. In the order dated 23rd July 2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, it records Petitioner has denied having paid any cash to Lucina. The Assessing Officer (\"AO\") says Petitioner, however, did not submit any documentary evidence in support of her claim. The only basis on which an allegation is made that Petitioner has paid cash is a statement of somebody from Lucina that it received cash from Petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate Printed from counselvise.com 24 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 that Petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs. 44,03,000/-. Further, in the order, it is stated that the income of source for purchase of immovable property of Rs. 64,94,200/- remained unexplained and therefore, it would fall within the meaning of \"assets\" as per Explanation 1 of section 149 of the Act. There is no explanation as to when it is the AO's case that the market value of the flat itself was only Rs. 51,55,000/-, how could the property be valued at Rs. 64,94,200/-. This has been done, in our view, simply to get over the fetters placed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The AO has not explained any of these factors. 11. Even in the assessment order, it is stated \"therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the source of payments alongwith on-money payment towards the purchase of flat have been asked to assessee. However, assessee has failed to provide the justified reply in regard to the complete source of payments, which have been made during the Assessment Year under consideration for purchase of flat.\" During the assessment year, only a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been paid and there is nothing that the AO has produced to show that any amount in excess of Rs. 50,00,000/- has been paid during the assessment year. The entire basis is the letter received from Lucina. In our view, that alone is not enough, particularly when assessee has denied having paid any cash to Lucina. The onus is on the Revenue to show evidence that assessee has in fact paid cash and purchased immovable property of Rs. 64,94,200/-. Simply relying on a letter allegedly from Lucina is not enough. In our view, there is no tangible matter to issue notice under section 148A or section 148 of the Act. 12. We also note from the assessment order that in any case this amount of Rs. 20,91,200/- has been offered by Lucina to tax before the Settlement Commission. If that is the case, we wonder how can the amount be taxed again in the hands of Petitioner. 13. In the circumstances, in our view, the impugned order dated 23rd July 2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside.” 21. Thus, on the aforesaid analysis and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts, reply to the contention raised by the Ld. D.R. to the effect that the admission and offering of on-money to tax by the Promoter/Director of RHIL and execution of Agreement for Sale by the promoter himself would entail making and affirming the addition, has become clear and therefore answered in “negative”. Thus, on that particular aspect as claimed by the Ld. CIT DR, Printed from counselvise.com 25 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 the addition is un-sustainable, specifically in view of the judgements referred to above. 22. Coming to another contention raised by the Ld. CIT DR that none of the Benches have dealt with excel sheet in particularly and therefore the instant case is factually dissimilar to the cases relied on by the Assessee and therefore the excel sheet which is otherwise having details of cheque amounts as correlated with the assessment order and agreement for sale as accepted by the Assessee and therefore the same excel sheet having details of on money can be made the foundation for making the addition in hand. We observe that the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Ketaram Purohit vs. DCIT, Central Circle (ITA Nos. 4747 & 4746/Mum/2025, order dated 20.01.2026) has also dealt with the identical Excel sheets, as relied upon by the Ld. CIT-DR and specifically reproduced the same in para 3 of the said order and after analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances identical to the case in hand, deleted the identical addition and thus, the contention of the Ld. D.R. is untenable. Even otherwise, the excel sheet was neither signed nor accepted by the Assessee and also not supported with corroborative material belonging to the Assessee and therefore in view of judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad vs. Kausik Nanubhai Majithia (supra) by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court, excel sheet cannot be relied on for making the addition. Printed from counselvise.com 26 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 23. As the facts and circumstances involved in this case for making and sustaining the addition, are not deviated from the aforesaid cases specifically Veena Hiralal Mehta case (supra) and the judgement referred to therein the said judgment and thus, on the aforesaid analyzations and respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal on identical issues and the decisions referred to above rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts, the addition under consideration is unsustainable, and therefore, we do not have any hesitation in deleting the same. Resultantly, the addition under consideration is deleted by allowing ITA No.8811/M/2025. 24. In view of our judgment in ITA No.8811/M/2025, remaining appeals as observed above emanates from the identical facts and additions and issues and therefore the same are also allowed in the same terms. 25. In the result, all appeals under consideration stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER M. Ranganath Vithal Sr. Private Secretary. Printed from counselvise.com 27 8811 to 8814/MUM/2025 & 8759 to 8767/M/2025 & 8867 to 8870/M/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "