Geetadevi Jabararam Purohit Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
In this case , the ITAT Mumbai dealt with additions made under Section 69 based on alleged cash payments (“on-money”) for purchase of commercial property, arising from a search in the Rubberwala Group.
The AO made additions relying solely on third-party statements and excel sheet data seized from the developer group, alleging that the assessee paid cash over and above the agreement value. The assessee consistently denied any such payment and argued that no incriminating material was found from her possession, nor were the relied-upon statements or documents ever confronted or subjected to cross-examination.
The Tribunal noted that:
- The entire addition was based on third-party evidence, not on any direct material against the assessee.
- No corroborative evidence linked the assessee to alleged cash payments.
- Principles of natural justice were violated, as no opportunity for cross-examination was provided.
- In identical cases from the same search (Rubberwala Group), coordinate benches had consistently deleted similar additions.
Accordingly, the ITAT held that additions cannot be sustained merely on unverified third-party statements or excel data without independent corroboration. The reliance placed by Revenue on Gujarat HC ruling was distinguished on facts.
Result:
The additions under Section 69 were deleted, and all appeals of the assessee were allowed.
Key takeaway:
No addition for “on-money” can survive without direct evidence + cross-examination + corroboration—third-party data alone is insufficient.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
