Bhavana Vikram Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
On-Money Allegation Based Only on Third-Party Pen Drive & Statement Can’t Survive: ITAT Deletes Section 69 Additions
Additions u/s 69 were made alleging cash on-money payments for purchase of a shop in “Platinum Mall”, based solely on statements of Rubberwala Group employee Shri Imran Ansari & Excel data found in a pen drive seized from his possession during search on Rubberwala Group.
Tribunal noted that the shop transaction itself took place only in FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20, hence additions in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 were factually unsustainable. For AY 2019-20 also, Tribunal held that uncorroborated third-party statements & pen-drive data, not confronted to Assessee, without any independent evidence or opportunity of cross-examination, cannot constitute “credible evidence” to justify addition u/s 69. Tribunal followed a consistent line of coordinate-bench decisions including Rajesh Jain, Praveen Khetaramm Purohit & other Rubberwala Group cases, holding that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof & violation of natural justice vitiates the addition. Accordingly, all additions u/s 69 for AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 were deleted & appeals were allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The assessee has filed the present appeals against the common order dated 04.09.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)], for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20.
