Bharat Harishchandra Purohit Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining additions under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act.
The assessee challenged additions made on the basis of a search conducted on the Rubberwala Group on 17.03.2021. During the search, statements of key persons of the group were recorded, including that of an employee who allegedly stated that “on-money” had been collected from purchasers of shops in Platinum Mall. Based on these statements, proceedings under Section 153C were initiated against the assessee and additions were made alleging payment of on-money. The assessee contended that no such payment had been made, that there was no independent or corroborative evidence, the assessee’s name was not specifically mentioned in the statements, and that neither the statements nor the seized material were furnished for rebuttal or cross-examination.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues had already been decided by co-ordinate benches in several cases, particularly Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra and Pravin Khetaramm Purohit. It observed that in those cases additions based solely on third-party statements, data found in a pen drive seized from a third party, and uncorroborated allegations of on-money had been deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not been confronted with the adverse material, copies of statements had not been provided, and no opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon had been granted. It further observed that no corroborative evidence specifically linking the assessee with any alleged on-money payment had been brought on record.
