Heena Dashrath Jhanglani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2 January 2018 for Assessment Year 2007-08, disputing, among other issues, an addition of ₹42 lakh made as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee confined arguments to the merits of the addition.
The assessee had filed her return of income on 29 February 2008, declaring total income of ₹1,70,480, which was initially processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, a search and seizure operation conducted on 11 March 2014 in the case of the Hiranandani Group resulted in the seizure of certain materials, including information contained in a pen drive. A statement under Section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded from Shri Niranjan Hiranandani, who admitted receipt of on-money in cash over and above the registered value of flats from buyers. Based on these materials, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 and proposed an addition of ₹42 lakh as unexplained investment under Section 69B, alleging that the assessee had paid on-money in cash to M/s. Crescendo Associates for purchase of Flat No. 2404 at “Torino”.
The assessee denied making any on-money payment and contended that she had neither interacted with Shri Niranjan Hiranandani nor paid any cash over and above the registered sale consideration. She submitted that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) did not directly refer to her, that the entire seized material and complete statement had not been supplied to her, and that no opportunity had been granted to cross-examine Shri Niranjan Hiranandani or other persons whose statements were relied upon. According to the assessee, except for the statement and the Excel Sheet prepared from the pen drive, there was no corroborative evidence supporting the addition.
