Jora Ram Mali Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, considered two appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 16.09.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2018–19 and 2019–20. As the issues involved in both appeals arose from the same search and seizure proceedings conducted on 17.03.2021 and were identical in nature, the Tribunal heard them together and passed a consolidated order, treating the appeal for AY 2018–19 as the lead case.
For AY 2018–19, the assessee challenged the confirmation of an addition of ₹27,15,625 made as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition had been made pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 153C following a search in the Rubberwala Group. The assessee raised multiple grounds, including lack of valid jurisdiction under Section 153C, absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee, reliance on unauthenticated electronic evidence, and failure of the Department to discharge the burden of proof.
The assessee contended that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the alleged incriminating material—an Excel file—was seized from a third party and neither belonged to nor pertained to the assessee. It was further argued that the mandatory satisfaction required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the assessee had not been properly established. The assessee also submitted that the addition was based solely on third-party data found in a pen drive, without any corroborative or incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged investment.
