SACHIN SHRIKANT NAIK,SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 42(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2183/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Sachin Shrikant Naik against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the addition of Rs. 50,88,000 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2015-16. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suspecting unexplained investment in a property. The Tribunal examined the precedents and similar cases involving the same real estate project, Runwal Green, where similar additions were contested. The Tribunal noted that the additions were often based on estimations and the general practice of the developer to accept 'on-money', which was not uniformly applicable to all transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785732 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Shrirang Vijay Rao v. ITO, Santosh Kadam v. ITO, Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: DHIRAJ S. DANDGAVAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure
• Section: 148; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sachin Shrikant Naik, D-915, Sagar Avenue, Dhobi Ghat, Off. Nehru Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400055. Vs. Dy. CIT-42(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ABNPN 9951 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Revenue by : Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 27/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee, Printed from counselvise.com thereby upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 50,88,000/ 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in opining that the assessee has failed to prove the source of cash paid to the builder of immovable property. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erroneously opined that the assessee's monthly instalment of the housing loan repayment compared to his total income. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the property was purchased by the assessee with his spouse and loan is being repaid by both of them. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned is not justified in not accepting the request of the Assessee to cross verify the builder and his claim of receipt of cash of Rs. 50,88,000/- from the assessee to purchase the flat. Hence, it is against the interes reassessment proceedings shall be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has ignore the gross errors identified by the assesse Re-Assessment Order through his submission, thereby showcasing the confusion of the Assessing Officer. Hence, whole of the reassessment proceedings are not valid and needs to be 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a employee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 26.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.22,99,270/ income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income short ‘the Act’). 2.1 Subsequently, informatio Officer from the office of the Director General of Income thereby upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 50,88,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in opining that the assessee has failed to prove the source of cash paid to the builder at the time of purchase of immovable property. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erroneously opined that the assessee's monthly instalment of the housing loan repayment is very high as compared to his total income. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the property was purchased by the assessee with his spouse and loan is being repaid by both of them. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in not accepting the request of the Assessee to cross verify the builder and his claim of receipt of cash of Rs. from the assessee to purchase the flat. Hence, it is against the interest of natural justice and the whole of the reassessment proceedings shall be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has ignore the gross errors identified by the assesse Assessment Order through his submission, thereby showcasing the confusion of the Assessing Officer. Hence, whole of the reassessment proceedings are not valid and quashed. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a employee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 26.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.22,99,270/ income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the office of the Director General of Income Sachin Shrikant Naik 2 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 thereby upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer of 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in opining that the assessee has failed to prove at the time of purchase 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erroneously opined that the assessee's monthly is very high as compared to his total income. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the property was purchased by the assessee with his spouse and 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in not accepting the request of the Assessee to cross verify the builder and his claim of receipt of cash of Rs. from the assessee to purchase the flat. Hence, it t of natural justice and the whole of the 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has ignore the gross errors identified by the assessee in the Assessment Order through his submission, thereby showcasing the confusion of the Assessing Officer. Hence, whole of the reassessment proceedings are not valid and Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee a salaried employee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 26.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.22,99,270/-. The return of tax Act, 1961 (in n was received by the Assessing Officer from the office of the Director General of Income-tax Printed from counselvise.com (Investigation), Mumbai, that a search and survey action had been carried out on 21st November, 2014 in the case of the Group. The said investigation revea in the practice of receiving cash consideration, commonly described as “on-money”, over and above the stated value of sale consideration in respect of flats sold in its real estate project titled “Runwal Green”. Certain incri evidencing such cash receipts were also seized. In the course of the said proceedings, Shri Subodh Runwal, Director of the Runwal Group, in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, admitted that the seized da recorded in the regular books of account. 2.2 The information so received further indicated that the assessee herein had purchased Flat No. T8 project and was alleged to have made a cash p ₹50,88,000/– as part of the consideration. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 29t 2.3 In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 28th April, 2017 declaring total income of reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the flat in question was jointly purchased by him and consideration of ₹1,56,12,000/ (Investigation), Mumbai, that a search and survey action had been carried out on 21st November, 2014 in the case of the . The said investigation revealed that the group was engaged in the practice of receiving cash consideration, commonly described , over and above the stated value of sale consideration in respect of flats sold in its real estate project titled . Certain incriminating documents and materials evidencing such cash receipts were also seized. In the course of the said proceedings, Shri Subodh Runwal, Director of the Runwal Group, in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, admitted that the seized data pertained to cash transactions not recorded in the regular books of account. The information so received further indicated that the assessee herein had purchased Flat No. T8-1604 in the said project and was alleged to have made a cash p as part of the consideration. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 29th March, 2017. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 28th April, 2017 declaring total income of ₹24,45,530/ reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the flat in question was jointly purchased by him and his wife for a total 1,56,12,000/–, payable in stages corresponding to Sachin Shrikant Naik 3 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 (Investigation), Mumbai, that a search and survey action had been carried out on 21st November, 2014 in the case of the Runwal led that the group was engaged in the practice of receiving cash consideration, commonly described , over and above the stated value of sale consideration in respect of flats sold in its real estate project titled minating documents and materials evidencing such cash receipts were also seized. In the course of the said proceedings, Shri Subodh Runwal, Director of the Runwal Group, in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, ta pertained to cash transactions not The information so received further indicated that the assessee 1604 in the said Runwal Green project and was alleged to have made a cash payment of as part of the consideration. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and accordingly h March, 2017. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 24,45,530/–. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the flat in his wife for a total , payable in stages corresponding to Printed from counselvise.com construction progress. The total cost, inclusive of stamp duty, VAT, and service tax, was approximately stated that all payments were mad cheques or by way of bank loan, and that no cash component whatsoever had been paid. 2.4 The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation, and in the absence of what he considered to be a “credible rebuttal”, proceeded to treat the alleged sum of ₹50,88,000/– as unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69 of the Act, thereby adding it to the total income of the assessee. 3. Upon appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) sustained the addition. The reasoning of the learned CIT(A), in essence, was that although the assessee claimed to have obtained a housing loan of certified copy of such bank documentation had been produced. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee’s declared income did not justify his capacity to service a loan with such high instalments, and therefore the alleged cash payment of unexplained. Concluding that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of such investment, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. CIT(A) is reproduced as construction progress. The total cost, inclusive of stamp duty, VAT, and service tax, was approximately ₹1.82 crores. It was further stated that all payments were made either through account payee cheques or by way of bank loan, and that no cash component whatsoever had been paid. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation, and in the absence of what he considered to be a “credible rebuttal”, proceeded to treat the alleged sum of as unexplained investment within the meaning of he Act, thereby adding it to the total income of the Upon appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) sustained the addition. The reasoning of the learned CIT(A), in essence, was that although the assessee claimed to have a housing loan of ₹1.35 crores from HDFC Bank, no certified copy of such bank documentation had been produced. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee’s declared income did not justify his capacity to service a loan with such high instalments, herefore the alleged cash payment of ₹50,88,000/ unexplained. Concluding that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of such investment, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of ld reproduced as under: Sachin Shrikant Naik 4 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 construction progress. The total cost, inclusive of stamp duty, VAT, 1.82 crores. It was further e either through account payee cheques or by way of bank loan, and that no cash component The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation, and in the absence of what he considered to be a “credible rebuttal”, proceeded to treat the alleged sum of as unexplained investment within the meaning of he Act, thereby adding it to the total income of the Upon appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition. The reasoning of the learned CIT(A), in essence, was that although the assessee claimed to have 1.35 crores from HDFC Bank, no certified copy of such bank documentation had been produced. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee’s declared income did not justify his capacity to service a loan with such high instalments, 50,88,000/– stood unexplained. Concluding that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of such investment, the learned CIT(A) The relevant finding of ld Printed from counselvise.com “4.3 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. In the instant case, I have carefully examined the assessment order and the record available in this case. During appeal, the assessee submitted that he had taken loa however, the appellant has not submitted any bank certified copy of the same and the amount of Rs. 135455/ repayment of loan appears to be beyond financial capacity of the appellant as his retur 26.08.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 24,45,530 only. Considering the significant discrepancy in the disclosed income and the unexplained cash payment. The assessee is unable to provide a valid explanati concerns regarding the financing of the transaction. As per AO, documents found during the search action confirmed that the actual value of the flat was higher than the declared agreement value, with a portion of the payment made in cash. Given that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash payment, low disclosed income and very high house loans with high monthly instalments the Assessing Officer rightly added the unexplained investmen assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The action taken by the Assessing Officer is justifiable, as the assessee's failure to provide adequate documentation or a credible explanation for the cash payment necessitated the addition under 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 147 of orders passed by co analogous matters arising from the same 5.1. The learned counsel specifically relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Shrirang Vij 812/Mum/2022 dated 3rd August, 2022, and in Santosh Kadam v. ITO 4.3 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. In the instant case, I have carefully examined the assessment order and the record available in this case. During appeal, the assessee submitted that he had taken loan from HDFC bank of Rs. 135.67 lacs however, the appellant has not submitted any bank certified copy of the same and the amount of Rs. 135455/- as monthly instalment of repayment of loan appears to be beyond financial capacity of the appellant as his return of income for the assessment year 2015 26.08.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 24,45,530 only. Considering the significant discrepancy in the disclosed income and the unexplained cash payment. The assessee is unable to provide a valid explanation or source for the cash payment, which led to further concerns regarding the financing of the transaction. As per AO, documents found during the search action confirmed that the actual value of the flat was higher than the declared agreement value, with a portion of the payment made in cash. Given that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash payment, low disclosed income and very high house loans with high monthly instalments the Assessing Officer rightly added the unexplained investment of Rs. 50,88,000 to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The action taken by the Assessing Officer is justifiable, as the assessee's failure to provide adequate documentation or a credible explanation for the ent necessitated the addition under section Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 147 and drew our attention to a series of orders passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in analogous matters arising from the same Runwal Green 5.1. The learned counsel specifically relied upon the decision of the Shri Shrirang Vijay Rao v. ITO 812/Mum/2022 dated 3rd August, 2022, and in Santosh Kadam v. ITO in ITA No. 227/Mum/2024 dated 17th Sachin Shrikant Naik 5 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 4.3 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. In the instant case, I have carefully examined the assessment order and the record available in this case. During appeal, the assessee n from HDFC bank of Rs. 135.67 lacs however, the appellant has not submitted any bank certified copy of as monthly instalment of repayment of loan appears to be beyond financial capacity of the n of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 26.08.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 24,45,530 only. Considering the significant discrepancy in the disclosed income and the unexplained cash payment. The assessee is unable to provide a on or source for the cash payment, which led to further concerns regarding the financing of the transaction. As per AO, documents found during the search action confirmed that the actual value of the flat was higher than the declared agreement value, with Given that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash payment, low disclosed income and very high house loans with high monthly instalments the Assessing Officer rightly added the t of Rs. 50,88,000 to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The action taken by the Assessing Officer is justifiable, as the assessee's failure to provide adequate documentation or a credible explanation for the section 69.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper and drew our attention to a series ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in Runwal Green project. 5.1. The learned counsel specifically relied upon the decision of the ay Rao v. ITO in ITA No. 812/Mum/2022 dated 3rd August, 2022, and in Smt. Shreya in ITA No. 227/Mum/2024 dated 17th Printed from counselvise.com March, 2025. Both cases pertained to purchasers of flats in the very same project, wherein additions had been made on i grounds—namely, the alleged admission of the Director of Runwal Group and the documents found during search. 5.2. Reliance was further placed upon the seminal order of this Tribunal in Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 5625/Mum/2017 dated basis of the alleged on itself was examined threadbare and deleted. 6. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. regarding the cash component of Rs.50,88,000/ paid by the assessee on the basis of the statement of the director of ‘Runwal Group’ of the companies search of said group. Thus, the impugned addit has its sole foundation in (i) the statement of the Director of the Runwal Group recorded under section 132(4), and (ii) documents seized from the premises of that group. It is not the Revenue’s case that any material or evidence was fo assessee’s possession or control to substantiate such cash payment. The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after an exhaustive analysis of the seized materials and the statement of Shri Subo Officer had grossly erred in extending the surrendered figure of on March, 2025. Both cases pertained to purchasers of flats in the very same project, wherein additions had been made on i namely, the alleged admission of the Director of Runwal Group and the documents found during search. 5.2. Reliance was further placed upon the seminal order of this Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 5625/Mum/2017 dated 20th December, 2017, wherein the very basis of the alleged on-money addition in the case of the developer itself was examined threadbare and deleted. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case, the dispute is regarding the cash component of Rs.50,88,000/- paid by the assessee on the basis of the statement of the director of ‘Runwal Group’ of the companies and documents found during search of said group. Thus, the impugned addition of has its sole foundation in (i) the statement of the Director of the Runwal Group recorded under section 132(4), and (ii) documents seized from the premises of that group. It is not the Revenue’s case that any material or evidence was found during proceedings in the assessee’s possession or control to substantiate such cash ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in (supra), after an exhaustive analysis of the seized materials and the statement of Shri Subodh Runwal, held that the Assessing Officer had grossly erred in extending the surrendered figure of on Sachin Shrikant Naik 6 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 March, 2025. Both cases pertained to purchasers of flats in the very same project, wherein additions had been made on identical namely, the alleged admission of the Director of Runwal 5.2. Reliance was further placed upon the seminal order of this Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No. 20th December, 2017, wherein the very money addition in the case of the developer We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused e, the dispute is alleged to have paid by the assessee on the basis of the statement of the director of and documents found during ion of ₹50,88,000/– has its sole foundation in (i) the statement of the Director of the Runwal Group recorded under section 132(4), and (ii) documents seized from the premises of that group. It is not the Revenue’s case und during proceedings in the assessee’s possession or control to substantiate such cash ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in Runwal Homes (supra), after an exhaustive analysis of the seized materials dh Runwal, held that the Assessing Officer had grossly erred in extending the surrendered figure of on- Printed from counselvise.com money, pertaining to a few identified flats, to all units sold in the project merely on estimation. It was observed that the admission made by the Director was confined to certain specific transactions post-January 2014 and that no evidence of universal cash receipts existed. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the additions made on mere presumptions and estimation. 6.1. Following the aforesaid decision, the Bench in Vijay Rao (supra) and purchasers of flats in the same Tower No. 8 additions of alleged cash components, holding that when the substantive addition in the hands of the developer itself had been deleted, no consequential or derivative addition could survive in the hands of the purchasers. case of Shrirang Vijay Rao (supra) is reproduced as under: “8. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Without reiterating the fats as referred above, we had gone through the decision of ITAT as referred (supra) in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. wherein addition pertaining to the c of unit purchased by the assessee was deleted. The relevant operating para of the said decision of ITAT is reproduced as under: “8. Now coming to the other addition included in the sum of Rs. 63,39,52,372/ Assessing Officer 3 and Commercial Rs. 31, 14,02,412/ Greens Towers 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 Rs. 31,52,99,960/ 63,39,52,372/ the seized material received by the assessee comes to Rs. 19,94,78,821/ already been confirmed by us and has been duly taken in to account by the assessee in the revised computation of income submitted by the a money, pertaining to a few identified flats, to all units sold in the project merely on estimation. It was observed that the admission or was confined to certain specific transactions January 2014 and that no evidence of universal cash receipts existed. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the additions made on mere presumptions and estimation. 6.1. Following the aforesaid decision, the Bench in (supra) and Smt. Shreya Santosh Kadam purchasers of flats in the same Tower No. 8— additions of alleged cash components, holding that when the ve addition in the hands of the developer itself had been deleted, no consequential or derivative addition could survive in the hands of the purchasers. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Shrirang Vijay Rao (supra) is reproduced as under: 8. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Without reiterating the fats as referred above, we had gone through the decision of ITAT as referred (supra) in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. wherein addition pertaining to the c of unit purchased by the assessee was deleted. The relevant operating para of the said decision of ITAT is reproduced as under: 8. Now coming to the other addition included in the sum of Rs. 63,39,52,372/-. The following additions were made by th Assessing Officer - 1 Project namely Runwal Greens Towers 3 and Commercial Rs. 31, 14,02,412/- 2 Project namely Runwal Greens Towers 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 Rs. 31,52,99,960/ 63,39,52,372/- It is not disputed that the on-money on the basis of e seized material received by the assessee comes to Rs. 19,94,78,821/-out of which the addition of Rs.72,50,000/ already been confirmed by us and has been duly taken in to account by the assessee in the revised computation of income submitted by the assessee during the course of hearing before the Sachin Shrikant Naik 7 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 money, pertaining to a few identified flats, to all units sold in the project merely on estimation. It was observed that the admission or was confined to certain specific transactions January 2014 and that no evidence of universal cash receipts existed. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the additions made on 6.1. Following the aforesaid decision, the Bench in Shri Shrirang Smt. Shreya Santosh Kadam (supra)—both —deleted similar additions of alleged cash components, holding that when the ve addition in the hands of the developer itself had been deleted, no consequential or derivative addition could survive in the The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Shrirang Vijay Rao (supra) is reproduced as under: 8. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Without reiterating the fats as referred above, we had gone through the decision of ITAT as referred (supra) in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. wherein addition pertaining to the category of unit purchased by the assessee was deleted. The relevant operating para of the said decision of ITAT is reproduced as under: 8. Now coming to the other addition included in the sum of Rs. . The following additions were made by the 1 Project namely Runwal Greens Towers -1,2 & 2 Project namely Runwal Greens Towers 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 Rs. 31,52,99,960/- Total Rs. money on the basis of e seized material received by the assessee comes to Rs. out of which the addition of Rs.72,50,000/- has already been confirmed by us and has been duly taken in to account by the assessee in the revised computation of income ssessee during the course of hearing before the Printed from counselvise.com Assessing Officer and on which the assessee has duly paid the tax. Now the question before us remains to the disputed addition amounting to Rs.62,67,02,372/ the seized mate period of the booking done from March 2014 to November 2014. The amount so worked out comes to` 19,94,78,821/ On-money of flats as per seized material On-money of shops as per seized material Out of the said sum 72,50,000/ in the preceding paragraph, therefore, on seized material remains at `19,22,28,821/ Assessing Offi course of search relating to the period of March 2014 to November 2014 took the view that the assessee might have received on money in all the bookings and therefore, he estimated cash portion on other units sold by taking the highest rate of sale of other units although no on search. The Assessing Officer while confirming the addition relied on the statements of the staff of the assessee as well as the statement of the Director Shri Subodh Runwal, mainly in reply to question nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are reproduced as under: \"Ans to Q.16 \"Sir as I have answered in earlier question I again reiterate that this project was a joint venture with HDFC Limited right from the inception till they exited. Subsequently to that the market has become very competitive and due to opening of a forest land we had to sell aggressively to achieve the numbers from the calendar year 2014, I accommodated a few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash. The difference in the above chart is specifically related to these customers who have been accommodated. I offer this difference as my income. I hereby farther reiterate and state that prior to this we have never accepte for any of the units sold in that project.\" Thus the assessee has acknowledged the discrepancy and has accepted that \"on Further the assessee was asked to state the other instances where unaccounted cash has boon taken in lieu of sale of residential / commercial units in their projects. Following Is the except of the relevant portion of his statement \"Q.17 Please provide the details as to other fiats in which similar practice is followed. Assessing Officer and on which the assessee has duly paid the tax. Now the question before us remains to the disputed addition amounting to Rs.62,67,02,372/- The total on money on the basis of the seized material found during the course of search relate to the period of the booking done from March 2014 to November 2014. The amount so worked out comes to` 19,94,78,821/- as detailed under: money of flats as per seized material - Rs. 13,44,68,725/ of shops as per seized material - Rs.6,50,10,096/ Out of the said sum 72,50,000/- has already been confirmed by us in the preceding paragraph, therefore, on-money on flats as per seized material remains at `19,22,28,821/-. We noted that the Assessing Officer on the basis of seized material found during the course of search relating to the period of March 2014 to November 2014 took the view that the assessee might have received on money in all the bookings and therefore, he estimated cash portion units sold by taking the highest rate of sale of other units although no on-money evidence were found during the course of search. The Assessing Officer while confirming the addition relied on the statements of the staff of the assessee as well as the ement of the Director Shri Subodh Runwal, mainly in reply to question nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are reproduced as under: \"Ans to Q.16 \"Sir as I have answered in earlier question I again reiterate that this project was a joint venture with HDFC Limited t from the inception till they exited. Subsequently to that the market has become very competitive and due to opening of a forest land we had to sell aggressively to achieve the numbers from the calendar year 2014, I accommodated a few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash. The difference in the above chart is specifically related to these customers who have been accommodated. I offer this difference as my income. I hereby farther reiterate and state that prior to this we have never accepte for any of the units sold in that project.\" Thus the assessee has acknowledged the discrepancy and has accepted that \"on-money\" has been taken in all the above instances. Further the assessee was asked to state the other instances where ed cash has boon taken in lieu of sale of residential / commercial units in their projects. Following Is the except of the relevant portion of his statement \"Q.17 Please provide the details as to other fiats in which similar practice is followed. Sachin Shrikant Naik 8 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 Assessing Officer and on which the assessee has duly paid the tax. Now the question before us remains to the disputed addition The total on money on the basis of rial found during the course of search relate to the period of the booking done from March 2014 to November 2014. The as detailed under:- Rs. 13,44,68,725/- Rs.6,50,10,096/- has already been confirmed by us money on flats as per . We noted that the cer on the basis of seized material found during the course of search relating to the period of March 2014 to November 2014 took the view that the assessee might have received on- money in all the bookings and therefore, he estimated cash portion units sold by taking the highest rate of sale of other units money evidence were found during the course of search. The Assessing Officer while confirming the addition relied on the statements of the staff of the assessee as well as the ement of the Director Shri Subodh Runwal, mainly in reply to question nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are reproduced as under: \"Ans to Q.16 \"Sir as I have answered in earlier question I again reiterate that this project was a joint venture with HDFC Limited t from the inception till they exited. Subsequently to that the market has become very competitive and due to opening of a forest land we had to sell aggressively to achieve the numbers from the calendar year 2014, I accommodated a few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash. The difference in the above chart is specifically related to these customers who have been accommodated. I offer this difference as my income. I hereby farther reiterate and state that prior to this we have never accepted in cash Thus the assessee has acknowledged the discrepancy and has money\" has been taken in all the above instances. Further the assessee was asked to state the other instances where ed cash has boon taken in lieu of sale of residential / commercial units in their projects. Following Is the except of the \"Q.17 Please provide the details as to other fiats in which similar Printed from counselvise.com Ans: Although in the other cases, I do not agree that in all the cases cash has been accepted by me over and above the agreement value. But to avoid protracted litigations with the department and to buy peace I accept the difference appearing in the chart beginning 1st January 2014 till date as my additional income over and above the regular income for the respective years as on received over and above the agreement value), I am submitting the working marked as Annexure~1 to this statement which ha pages. Q.18 As per the working submitted as part of annexure to answer to question number 16, the amount of on money accepted in the project namely Runwal Greens (M/s Runwal Homes Private Limited), is Rs.63,39,52,372/ Ans; Sir, due 63,39,52.372A (which as per Annexure accepted in the projects Runwal Green (M/s. Runwal Homes Private Limited), and the same has been offered as additional income over and above the Limited. Here / want to state that Olive project is under the proprietorship of Mr. Subhash Runwal.\" We have gone through the answer to question nos. 16, 17 and 18. We noted that in reply to question no.16, company stated that initially the project was joint venture with HDFC Limited. Subsequently, when the market has become more competitive and due to the opening of the forest land they had to sell aggressively, in order to achieve t year 2014 and, therefore, in order to accommodate few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash, they accepted cash for few units. He has categorically stated that prior to that date they have never accepted any ca categorically stated that he did not agree that in all cases cash bas been accepted over and above the agreement value but he agreed to surrender the difference as its additional income over and above the regular income for the respective years as on protracted litigations with the department and buy peace. On that basis the total on Rs.63,39,52,372/ undisputed fact that on produced before us, the copy of which are available at pages 436 to 441 of the paper seized documents, by the assessee in respect of flats comes to 13,44,68,725/ For the rest of the addition in respect of which no incriminating material was found, we noted from pages 439 to 441 of the paper ough in the other cases, I do not agree that in all the cases cash has been accepted by me over and above the agreement value. But to avoid protracted litigations with the department and to buy peace I accept the difference appearing in the chart beginning 1st January 2014 till date as my additional income over and above the regular income for the respective years as on- received over and above the agreement value), I am submitting the working marked as Annexure~1 to this statement which ha Q.18 As per the working submitted as part of annexure to answer to question number 16, the amount of on money accepted in the project namely Runwal Greens (M/s Runwal Homes Private Limited), is Rs.63,39,52,372/- Please confirm ? to reasons mention above I confirm the amount of Rs. 63,39,52.372A (which as per Annexure-1), as the on money accepted in the projects Runwal Green (M/s. Runwal Homes Private Limited), and the same has been offered as additional income over and above the income declared in the M/s. Runwal Homes Private Limited. Here / want to state that Olive project is under the proprietorship of Mr. Subhash Runwal.\" We have gone through the answer to question nos. 16, 17 and 18. We noted that in reply to question no.16, Director of the assessee company stated that initially the project was joint venture with HDFC Limited. Subsequently, when the market has become more competitive and due to the opening of the forest land they had to sell aggressively, in order to achieve the numbers from the calendar year 2014 and, therefore, in order to accommodate few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash, they accepted cash for few units. He has categorically stated that prior to that date they have never accepted any cash. In reply to question no.17, he has categorically stated that he did not agree that in all cases cash bas been accepted over and above the agreement value but he agreed to surrender the difference as its additional income over and above the me for the respective years as on-money to avoid protracted litigations with the department and buy peace. On that basis the total on-money received was worked out at Rs.63,39,52,372/- and added to the income of the assessee. It is undisputed fact that on the basis of the documents and evidence produced before us, the copy of which are available at pages 436 to 441 of the paper-book, the on money received, on the basis of the seized documents, by the assessee in respect of flats comes to 13,44,68,725/-and in respect of shops comes to ` 6,50,10,096/ For the rest of the addition in respect of which no incriminating material was found, we noted from pages 439 to 441 of the paper Sachin Shrikant Naik 9 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 ough in the other cases, I do not agree that in all the cases cash has been accepted by me over and above the agreement value. But to avoid protracted litigations with the department and to buy peace I accept the difference appearing in the chart beginning from 1st January 2014 till date as my additional income over and above money (Cash received over and above the agreement value), I am submitting the working marked as Annexure~1 to this statement which has two Q.18 As per the working submitted as part of annexure to answer to question number 16, the amount of on money accepted in the project namely Runwal Greens (M/s Runwal Homes Private Limited), is to reasons mention above I confirm the amount of Rs. 1), as the on money accepted in the projects Runwal Green (M/s. Runwal Homes Private Limited), and the same has been offered as additional income over income declared in the M/s. Runwal Homes Private Limited. Here / want to state that Olive project is under the We have gone through the answer to question nos. 16, 17 and 18. Director of the assessee company stated that initially the project was joint venture with HDFC Limited. Subsequently, when the market has become more competitive and due to the opening of the forest land they had to he numbers from the calendar year 2014 and, therefore, in order to accommodate few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash, they accepted cash for few units. He has categorically stated that prior to that date they sh. In reply to question no.17, he has categorically stated that he did not agree that in all cases cash bas been accepted over and above the agreement value but he agreed to surrender the difference as its additional income over and above the money to avoid protracted litigations with the department and buy peace. On that money received was worked out at and added to the income of the assessee. It is the basis of the documents and evidence produced before us, the copy of which are available at pages 436 to book, the on money received, on the basis of the seized documents, by the assessee in respect of flats comes to n respect of shops comes to ` 6,50,10,096/-. For the rest of the addition in respect of which no incriminating material was found, we noted from pages 439 to 441 of the paper Printed from counselvise.com book, the Assessing Officer just estimated the on @15,750/- per shops @26,000/ Officer was fair enough to state that no incriminating material was found but had estimate @15750/ per sq. ft. for shops. This is a case where assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3), therefore, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer as if the assessee has received whatever is stated in the documents executed by the assessee. In our opinion, is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has actually received the consideration much more than what has been agreed to or stated in the documents executed between the intended buyer and the assessee. No cogent material or evidence was brough knowledge by the learned DR even though he has vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the statement of the Director of the company, which may prove that the assessee has received consideration @15750/ per sq. ft. for shops. There has been search and seizure in the case of the assessee. If the assessee would have received consideration much more than what is stated in the documents, for which no evidence is found during the course of sea addition can be sustained. There cannot be any agreement against the statute. The assessee agreed for declaration of the income for which no material was found merely to avoid protracted litigations with the department and buy peace income; the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the income has accrued to the assessee. Even otherwise also since there has been a search in the case of the assessee, if the assessee would have earned such income there must have that either the assessee has made investment outside the books of account or has spend this income in one way or the other. Income tax is leviable u/s. 4 of the I.T Act on the real income. If income has not accrued or received by t burdened for income tax liability. From the documents available on record, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has estimated the booking amount and on that basis assumed that the assessee would have received the on the assessee has sold all the flats @15750/ shops @26000/ evident that different flats and different shops have been booked at different rates b as found during the course of search, the assessee has given discount on the bookings at different rates to different customers. We noted that in respect of two shops although the base rate has been mentione around Rs. 4150 per sq. ft. and booked the shops @17500 per sq. ft including the club charges of Rs.750/ book, the Assessing Officer just estimated the on-money of the flat per sq. ft totaling to Rs.33,47,33,101/- and that of the shops @26,000/- totaling to Rs. 9,97,40,450/-, But the Assessing Officer was fair enough to state that no incriminating material was found but had estimate @15750/- per sq. ft for flats and @26000/ sq. ft. for shops. This is a case where assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3), therefore, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer as if the assessee has received whatever is stated in the documents executed by the assessee. In our opinion, is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has actually received the consideration much more than what has been agreed to or stated in the documents executed between the intended buyer and the assessee. No cogent material or evidence was brough knowledge by the learned DR even though he has vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the statement of the Director of the company, which may prove that the assessee has received consideration @15750/- per sq. ft for flats and @26000/ per sq. ft. for shops. There has been search and seizure in the case of the assessee. If the assessee would have received consideration much more than what is stated in the documents, for which no evidence is found during the course of search, in our opinion, no addition can be sustained. There cannot be any agreement against the statute. The assessee agreed for declaration of the income for which no material was found merely to avoid protracted litigations with the department and buy peace. The assessee has earned income; the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the income has accrued to the assessee. Even otherwise also since there has been a search in the case of the assessee, if the assessee would have earned such income there must have been some evidence found that either the assessee has made investment outside the books of account or has spend this income in one way or the other. Income tax is leviable u/s. 4 of the I.T Act on the real income. If income has not accrued or received by the assessee, the assessee cannot be burdened for income tax liability. From the documents available on record, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has estimated the booking amount and on that basis assumed that the assessee would have received the on-money. He made the presumption as if the assessee has sold all the flats @15750/- per sq. ft and the shops @26000/- per sq. ft. From the documents in the booking, it is evident that different flats and different shops have been booked at different rates by the assessee. From page 443 of the paper as found during the course of search, the assessee has given discount on the bookings at different rates to different customers. We noted that in respect of two shops although the base rate has been mentioned @21,000 per sq. ft, the assessee has given discount around Rs. 4150 per sq. ft. and booked the shops @17500 per sq. ft including the club charges of Rs.750/-. Similarly, in respect of flat Sachin Shrikant Naik 10 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 money of the flat and that of the , But the Assessing Officer was fair enough to state that no incriminating material was per sq. ft for flats and @26000/- sq. ft. for shops. This is a case where assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3), therefore, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer as if the assessee has received whatever is stated in the documents executed by the assessee. In our opinion, the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has actually received the consideration much more than what has been agreed to or stated in the documents executed between the intended buyer and the assessee. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our knowledge by the learned DR even though he has vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the statement of the Director of the company, which may prove that the assessee has ats and @26000/- per sq. ft. for shops. There has been search and seizure in the case of the assessee. If the assessee would have received consideration much more than what is stated in the documents, for which no rch, in our opinion, no addition can be sustained. There cannot be any agreement against the statute. The assessee agreed for declaration of the income for which no material was found merely to avoid protracted litigations . The assessee has earned income; the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the income has accrued to the assessee. Even otherwise also since there has been a search in the case of the assessee, if the assessee would have been some evidence found that either the assessee has made investment outside the books of account or has spend this income in one way or the other. Income tax is leviable u/s. 4 of the I.T Act on the real income. If income has he assessee, the assessee cannot be burdened for income tax liability. From the documents available on record, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has estimated the booking amount and on that basis assumed that the assessee money. He made the presumption as if per sq. ft and the per sq. ft. From the documents in the booking, it is evident that different flats and different shops have been booked at y the assessee. From page 443 of the paper-book, as found during the course of search, the assessee has given discount on the bookings at different rates to different customers. We noted that in respect of two shops although the base rate has d @21,000 per sq. ft, the assessee has given discount around Rs. 4150 per sq. ft. and booked the shops @17500 per sq. ft . Similarly, in respect of flat Printed from counselvise.com also we noted that the base rate has been mentioned @12,000/ sq. ft and after adding floor rise, club charges, infra charges etc., total rate came to Rs.14375 per sq. ft. and the assessee has also given discount of Rs. 1000/ @13,350 per sq. ft. Even on the same very page had the deta the flats which had been booked @ 14550/ 13225/- per sq. ft. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer while making the addition is based just on assumption as if the assessee the assessee has sold all the flats @15750 per sq. ft. In view of this fact, we delete the addition of Rs. 33,47,33,101/ made on the basis of estimating the sale consideration in respect of the flats @15750/ presumption as having being booked shop As per the decision of the ITAT (supra), it is clear that the ITAT has deleted the part of the addition which was based on estimation of 'on money' on flats where no incriminating documents were found as elaborated in the finding of ITAT. It i form the facts reported (supra) that addition in respect of Tower No.8 in the project viz. \"Runwal Green\" were made on estimation basis, therefore the decision of the Id. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.31,28,000 in the residential unit No.T8 following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. Acc assessee are 6.1 In the case of Shreya Santosh Kadam (supra) also the Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Shrirang Vijay Rao (supra). present case stands on identical footing. The flat purchased by the assessee is located in Tower No. 8 of the same project. No material evidencing payment of cash by the assessee has been found or brought on record. In view of the above precedents, onl making addition in the case of the assessee of Rs.50,88,000/ the documents found at the premises of the Runwal Green and the statement of the Director of the said company. Since addition in the also we noted that the base rate has been mentioned @12,000/ sq. ft and after adding floor rise, club charges, infra charges etc., total rate came to Rs.14375 per sq. ft. and the assessee has also given discount of Rs. 1000/- and ultimately booked the flat @13,350 per sq. ft. Even on the same very page had the deta the flats which had been booked @ 14550/-, 14300/ per sq. ft. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer while making the addition is based just on assumption as if the assessee the assessee has sold all the flats 50 per sq. ft. In view of this fact, we delete the addition of Rs. 33,47,33,101/ made on the basis of estimating the sale consideration in respect of the flats @15750/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 9,97,40,450/- presumption as having being booked shops @26000/-.\" As per the decision of the ITAT (supra), it is clear that the ITAT has deleted the part of the addition which was based on estimation of 'on money' on flats where no incriminating documents were found as elaborated in the finding of ITAT. It is categorically established form the facts reported (supra) that addition in respect of Tower No.8 in the project viz. \"Runwal Green\" were made on estimation basis, therefore the decision of the Id. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.31,28,000 in the case of the assessee for purchasing residential unit No.T8-1604 in Tower 8 is not justified therefore following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the are allowed.” In the case of Shreya Santosh Kadam (supra) also the Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Shrirang Vijay Rao (supra). present case stands on identical footing. The flat purchased by the assessee is located in Tower No. 8 of the same project. No material evidencing payment of cash by the assessee has been found or In view of the above precedents, onl making addition in the case of the assessee of Rs.50,88,000/ the documents found at the premises of the Runwal Green and the statement of the Director of the said company. Since addition in the Sachin Shrikant Naik 11 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 also we noted that the base rate has been mentioned @12,000/- per sq. ft and after adding floor rise, club charges, infra charges etc., total rate came to Rs.14375 per sq. ft. and the assessee has also and ultimately booked the flat @13,350 per sq. ft. Even on the same very page had the details of , 14300/- and Rs. per sq. ft. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer while making the addition is based just on assumption as if the assessee the assessee has sold all the flats In view of this fact, we delete the addition of Rs. 33,47,33,101/- made on the basis of estimating the sale consideration in respect of based on the .\" As per the decision of the ITAT (supra), it is clear that the ITAT has deleted the part of the addition which was based on estimation of 'on money' on flats where no incriminating documents were found s categorically established form the facts reported (supra) that addition in respect of Tower No.8 in the project viz. \"Runwal Green\" were made on estimation basis, therefore the decision of the Id. CIT(A) in sustaining the case of the assessee for purchasing 1604 in Tower 8 is not justified therefore following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the ordingly, the Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the In the case of Shreya Santosh Kadam (supra) also the Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Shrirang Vijay Rao (supra). The present case stands on identical footing. The flat purchased by the assessee is located in Tower No. 8 of the same project. No material evidencing payment of cash by the assessee has been found or In view of the above precedents, only basis for making addition in the case of the assessee of Rs.50,88,000/- was the documents found at the premises of the Runwal Green and the statement of the Director of the said company. Since addition in the Printed from counselvise.com said company itself for on deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. foundation of the Revenue’s case being demolished by the Tribunal’s earlier decisions, the impugned addition of cannot, in law or on fact, be sustained. 6.2 We also deem it appropriate to observe that the remarks of the learned CIT(A) regarding the assessee’s financial capacity to service a bank loan are wholly extraneous to the issue before us. The matter under appeal pertains to an alleged cash investment; the assessee’s creditworthiness to avail of a sanctioned housing loan, duly disbursed through banking channels, bears no relevance to the existence or otherwise of such unrecorded payment. Such observations, therefore, are directed to be expunged from the appellate record. 6.3 In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the binding precedent of the co the cases cited (supra), we hold that the addition of made under section 69 of the Act is unsustai is accordingly directed to be deleted. assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. said company itself for on-money payment rece ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. foundation of the Revenue’s case being demolished by the Tribunal’s earlier decisions, the impugned addition of cannot, in law or on fact, be sustained. deem it appropriate to observe that the remarks of the learned CIT(A) regarding the assessee’s financial capacity to service a bank loan are wholly extraneous to the issue before us. The matter under appeal pertains to an alleged cash investment; the see’s creditworthiness to avail of a sanctioned housing loan, duly disbursed through banking channels, bears no relevance to the existence or otherwise of such unrecorded payment. Such observations, therefore, are directed to be expunged from the In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the binding precedent of the co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the cases cited (supra), we hold that the addition of made under section 69 of the Act is unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly directed to be deleted. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Sachin Shrikant Naik 12 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 money payment received has been ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. The entire foundation of the Revenue’s case being demolished by the Tribunal’s earlier decisions, the impugned addition of ₹50,88,000/– deem it appropriate to observe that the remarks of the learned CIT(A) regarding the assessee’s financial capacity to service a bank loan are wholly extraneous to the issue before us. The matter under appeal pertains to an alleged cash investment; the see’s creditworthiness to avail of a sanctioned housing loan, duly disbursed through banking channels, bears no relevance to the existence or otherwise of such unrecorded payment. Such observations, therefore, are directed to be expunged from the In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the cases cited (supra), we hold that the addition of ₹50,88,000/– nable in law. The same The grounds of appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Printed from counselvise.com Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, 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// ounced in the open Court on 27/10/2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sachin Shrikant Naik 13 ITA No. 2183/MUM/2025 /10/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "