ITAT Mumbai: On-Money Addition Crumbles Without Evidence – Platinum Mall Case

Meena Lalit Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai: “On-Money” Addition Crumbles Without Evidence – Platinum Mall Case

In a significant ruling, the ITAT Mumbai deleted additions made under Section 69 across three assessment years, where the Assessing Officer alleged cash (“on-money”) payments for purchase of shops in the Platinum Mall project. The entire addition was based on third-party statements and an excel sheet seized from another party during a search.

The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found from the assessee, and the addition was built solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. Crucially, the complete excel sheet was never furnished, and the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity to rebut the material, violating principles of natural justice.

Further, the year-wise bifurcation of alleged cash payments lacked any evidentiary basis, as the underlying data did not contain dates or clear linkage to specific years. The Tribunal emphasized that mere admission of “on-money” by the developer or internal records cannot automatically implicate the buyer without independent corroboration.

Relying on consistent coordinate bench rulings in similar Rubberwala group cases, the ITAT reiterated that additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or third-party material without corroborative evidence and proper confrontation.

Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted all additions, holding them unsustainable in law due to lack of credible evidence and breach of natural justice.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

These appeals by the assessee arise out of the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.

The assessment orders for all the three years were passed by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”], under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], all dated 30.03.2024. The appellate orders were passed by the learned CIT(A)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Act, all dated 10.10.2025. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order, with A.Y. 2017-18 taken as the lead year.

Common Facts of the Case

2. The assessee is an individual. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 17.03.2021 in the case of Rubberwala Group and its associated persons. During the course of such search proceedings, certain materials, including statements recorded under oath and electronic data in the form of excel sheets, were found and seized, which, according to the Assessing Officer, indicated that certain cash transactions had taken place in respect of sale of shops in “Platinum Mall” project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd.

3. On the basis of such material, the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction and initiated proceedings under section 153C of the Act against the assessee. Notice under section 153C was issued on 26.07.2023 and in response thereto, the assessee filed returns of income declaring the same income as originally returned.

4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer relied upon the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, who was stated to be handling sale and registration of shops in the said project. In the said statement, it was admitted that the consideration for sale of shops comprised both accounted and unaccounted cash components, and that the details of such transactions were maintained in excel sheets. Based on such statement and seized material, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had made cash payments towards purchase of shops in different assessment years.

5. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had allegedly paid cash aggregating to Rs. 1,50,000/- in A.Y. 2017-18, Rs. 14,79,288/- in A.Y. 2018-19 and Rs. 91,48,169/- in A.Y. 2019­20 towards purchase of commercial shops in Platinum Mall. The assessee was issued show cause notices requiring explanation as to why such amounts should not be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. In response, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that she is a housewife deriving income mainly from interest, and that the purchases were made out of disclosed sources including savings and borrowings from family and friends. It was further contended that no incriminating material directly pertaining to the assessee was provided, and that reliance solely on third-party statements and excel sheets without corroboration was unjustified. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished and proceeded to make additions under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment for each of the years under consideration.

6. Year-wise details are as under:

7. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Before the lower authorities, the assessee contended that no incriminating material directly pertaining to the assessee was provided and the additions were made solely on the basis of third-party statements and unverified excel sheets. It was also contended that no opportunity of cross-examination of the person whose statement was relied upon was granted and the alleged transactions were not supported by independent corroborative evidence. The assessee also contended that the acceptance of additions by other parties cannot be used against the assessee. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions placed on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) observed that the additions were based on material found during search and corroborated by statements recorded under oath, and therefore confirmed the additions made under section 69 of the Act.

8. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal which are identical in substance across all the three assessment years:

1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s 250 which is bad in law.

2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that AO had failed to provide a copy of incriminating material (i.e excel sheet) to the appellant on basis of which such impugned addition was made. Hence denial of principle of natural justice.

3. On the basis of facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal against the appellant without providing an opportunity to cross examine the alleged party based on the documents / statements which is purportedly treated as evidence by the Assessing officer for confirming the addition.

4. a) On the basis of facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in relying on figures in excel sheet and confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that how did AO derive at the specific assessment years for making addition in the absence of date of payment in the extract of excel sheet provided to the appellant vide satisfaction note.

b) Without prejudice to ground 2 – On the basis of facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the addition amount made by AO without verifying that alleged cash payments / cash return mentioned in the excel sheet directly attached in the order does not match with the total addition made, neither dates of transactions are mentioned fully making the entire document unreliable and invalid.

5. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without appreciating the fact the addition made by AO was solely on the basis of a third-party statement wherein name of the appellant was not mentioned in the extract of statement provided and AO had blindly relied only on statement and excel sheet rather than making independent verification to obtain corroborative conclusive evidence.

6. On the basis of facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred by not following the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in case of one of the other appellants in the matter of Rubberwala group in true sense and fashion wherein it was clearly held by the Tribunal that addition cannot be made in the absence of corroborative material and failure by the department to provide an opportunity of cross examination [Rajesh Jain – ITA Nos 3842 & 3841/ MUM/ 2023]. Thus CIT(A) has wrongly distinguished the said case without going into the principles on which the said judgment was delivered.

7. a) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the Assessing officer had made an addition merely on the premise that the counter party has accepted the addition without appreciating the fact that the additions were accepted by the counter-party only to buy peace of mind and to refrain from entering into unwarranted litigation.

b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that acceptance of addition in income by one party cannot warrant the truthfulness of transaction and thereby rippling the effect of addition on the appellant.

The appellant craves for leave to add to alter to amend or to delete any of the above grounds of appeal if necessary.

9. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the factual matrix of the case as emerging from the orders of the lower authorities and assailed the additions primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of proper evidentiary basis. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had not furnished a copy of the alleged incriminating material, namely the excel sheet, to the assessee at any stage of the assessment proceedings. The learned AR contended that despite repeated requests, neither the contents nor the basis of such excel sheet were made available, thereby depriving the assessee of an effective opportunity to rebut the same.

10. The learned AR further submitted that the manner in which the additions have been distributed across the three assessment years has not been explained by the Assessing Officer. According to the learned AR, there is no clarity as to how specific amounts have been attributed to each year in the absence of dates or identifiable transaction details in the alleged excel sheet. It was also contended that even at the appellate stage, the learned CIT(A) did not furnish the said material to the assessee. Instead, the learned CIT(A) has directly reproduced certain portions of the alleged excel sheet in the appellate order, without confronting the same to the assessee for rebuttal. In this regard, the learned AR drew specific attention to the extracts reproduced by the learned CIT(A) at page Nos. 46 to 49 of the appellate order.

11. The learned AR further pointed out that the details reproduced by the learned CIT(A) pertain only to five shops, whereas the assessee had in fact purchased six shops. This, according to the learned AR, clearly demonstrates inconsistency and incompleteness in the material relied upon by the lower authorities. It was also contended that the aggregate of the amounts as derived by the Assessing Officer and as reflected in the appellate order does not tally, thereby indicating that the additions have been made on an erroneous and unverified basis without proper reconciliation. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned AR submitted that the additions made under section 69 are unsustainable both on facts and in law.

12. The learned AR further relied upon the decision of the co­ordinate bench in the case of Bharti Jayanti Jain vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 7323, 7321 & 7322/Mum/2025 for A. Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20, order dated 06.02.2026. The learned AR submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts considered by the co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid decision, wherein the additions made under section 69 on account of alleged “on-money” payments in the same Rubberwala group search were deleted.It was also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench, following earlier decisions in the cases of Pravin Khetaramm Purohit, Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra, Bhavana Vikram Jain and others, has consistently held that additions based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data, without corroboration and without granting opportunity of cross-examination, are unsustainable in law.

13. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A).The learned DR submitted that the additions have been made on the basis of cogent material found during the course of search and the same cannot be brushed aside merely on technical grounds. It was contended that the excel sheet seized during the search proceedings contained specific and detailed information relating to the transactions of sale of shops in the Platinum Mall project. The learned DR pointed out that the excel sheet clearly contained particulars such as shop numbers, cheque payments and cash components, and thus constituted a detailed record of transactions. It was further submitted that the contents of the said excel sheet were confronted to Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director of the group concern, who had confirmed the authenticity of such data during the course of search/post-search proceedings.

14. The learned DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had specifically called upon the assessee to explain these transactions by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In particular, attention was drawn to Question No. 13 of the said notice, wherein the assessee was required to furnish explanation in respect of the transactions reflected in the seized material. However, according to the learned DR, the assessee chose not to furnish any specific reply to the said query and avoided addressing the issue directly. It was thus contended that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon her to explain the incriminating material.

15. The learned DR further invited our attention to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, a copy of which has been placed on record. Referring to the said notice, the learned DR submitted that the entire basis of the addition was duly confronted to the assessee. It was pointed out that the show cause notice specifically referred to the search conducted on the Rubberwala group on 17.03.2021 and the seizure of a pen drive from the residence of Shri Imran Ansari containing an excel file titled “consolidated 1 2 3 balance”, which, as per the Department, contained detailed data relating to sale of shops in the Platinum Mall project.

16. The learned DR emphasized that the said notice clearly set out the nature of entries contained in the excel sheet, including details such as name of buyer, shop number, agreement value, cheque component and cash component. It was further pointed out that the statements recorded under section 132(4) of Shri Imran Ansari and Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director of the developer company, were also referred to in the show cause notice, wherein the existence of cash component in such transactions was admitted. The learned DR further submitted that the show cause notice also contained a specific working of the alleged cash component of Rs. 1,07,77,457/- and its year-wise bifurcation across different assessment years, including the amounts of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 14,79,288/- and Rs. 91,48,169/- attributed to the years under consideration. Thus, according to the learned DR, all relevant particulars forming the basis of the proposed addition were duly communicated to the assessee. It was further contended that despite such detailed show cause notice, the assessee did not furnish any substantive reply dealing with the specific allegations.

17. The learned DR submitted that the assessee neither sought cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon, nor requested for any further details of the excel sheet or seized material at that stage.

18. The learned DR further invited our attention to the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, particularly the extract of statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director of M/s. Rubberwala Housing 86 Infrastructure Ltd., reproduced at page 10 of the assessment order in para 9.2.Referring to the said portion, the learned DR submitted that Shri Tabrez Shaikh, in his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on 19.08.2021, has categorically admitted that cash was received from buyers in respect of sale of shops in the “Platinum Mall” project. It was further pointed out that he has also offered 8% of such unaccounted cash receipts as additional income in the hands of the company. The learned DR drew specific attention to the working reproduced in the assessment order, wherein total unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,51,39,11,026/- were admitted for various financial years, and income at the rate of 8% on such receipts was declared by the developer entity. On the basis of the aforesaid admission, the learned DR submitted that the existence of cash component in the transactions of sale of shops stands conclusively established. It was contended that once the developer himself has admitted receipt of on-money and the seized material corroborates such transactions, the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid cash over and above the agreement value is justified. The learned DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has relied upon such admission along with the seized excel data and has made the addition only to the extent relatable to the assessee, after bifurcating the same year-wise. It was thus contended that the additions are based on credible material and cannot be said to be merely on suspicion.

19. Dealing with the judicial precedents relied upon by the learned AR, the learned DR submitted that the said decisions are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case. The learned DR contended that in the cases relied upon by the learned AR, the Co-ordinate Bench had granted relief primarily on the ground that the assessee was denied opportunity of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon and that the adverse material was not confronted to the assessee. However, according to the learned DR, in the present case, no such request for cross-examination was ever made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. It was submitted that the assessee did not raise any grievance before the Assessing Officer regarding non-providing of opportunity of cross-examination, nor was any specific request made seeking such opportunity. It was thus contended that the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned AR, which are based on denial of cross-examination, would not apply to the facts of the present case.

20. In view of the above, the learned DR submitted that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is an afterthought, as the assessee had been duly confronted with the material and given an opportunity to explain the same, which the assessee failed to avail. Accordingly, it was contended that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) deserve to be upheld.

21. In rebuttal to the submissions advanced by the learned DR, the learned AR the show cause notice dated 23.03.2024, heavily relied upon by the Department, was in fact never received by the assessee on her registered e-mail address on the Income Tax portal. It was contended that due to such non-receipt, the assessee was completely deprived of an effective opportunity to respond to the allegations and to explain the transactions referred to therein. It was further contended that the allegation of the learned DR that the assessee did not seek cross-examination or did not respond to the notice is misplaced, inasmuch as such opportunity itself was never effectively made available due to non-service of the notice.

22. It was further contended that the entire addition is based on an alleged excel sheet without any independent corroborative evidence. It was submitted that a copy of the complete excel sheet, which the Assessing Officer treated as incriminating material, was never provided to the assessee at any stage of the proceedings. The learned AR submitted that there is no clarity as to how the Assessing Officer derived the specific assessment years for making additions. It was pointed out that the extract of the excel sheet, as referred to in the satisfaction note, does not contain dates of payments, and therefore, the allocation of amounts across different years is arbitrary and without any factual basis. It was also contended that apart from the general admission of income by the searched party on a presumptive basis, there is no independent verification carried out by the Assessing Officer to establish that any cash transaction has actually taken place with the assessee. It was emphasized that mere mention of cash figures in an excel sheet, without date or supporting evidence, does not establish actual payment.

23. The learned AR further submitted that acceptance of income by the developer entity cannot automatically fasten liability upon the assessee, particularly when such acceptance was made to buy peace and avoid litigation. It was contended that such admission, in absence of corroborative material linking the assessee, cannot be used adversely. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to make the addition merely on the basis of a limited response to a notice, without conducting any meaningful enquiry or investigation. The notice issued by the Assessing Officer, according to the learned AR, was confined to general details and did not effectively confront the assessee with the alleged material.

24. The learned AR further pointed out that although reference has been made to maintenance of a diary for recording cash transactions, no such diary was found either from the premises of the searched party or from the assessee, thereby weakening the evidentiary value of the allegation.

25. Lastly, the learned AR submitted that the figures attributed as cash payments by the assessee aggregate to Rs.1,07,77,457/-, which, according to the learned AR, appear arbitrary and unreliable, particularly considering that such figures are uneven and not supported by any identifiable transaction pattern.

26. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the assessment orders, the impugned appellate orders, the written submissions filed by the assessee, the show cause notice relied upon by the Revenue, and the judicial precedents cited before us. The controversy in all the three years is substantially common, namely, whether the additions made under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged cash component in purchase of shops in “Platinum Mall” can be sustained merely on the basis of the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, the alleged excel data found in a pen drive seized from him, and the subsequent admission by Shri Tabrez Shaikh that the developer group had received unaccounted cash from buyers.

27. At the outset, it is necessary to note the exact evidentiary foundation on which the impugned additions have been made. The Assessing Officer has not found any cash, diary, loose paper, parallel books, acknowledgment, receipt, or any other incriminating material from the possession or control of the assessee. The addition is founded entirely on material found from a third party, namely the Rubberwala group, particularly the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the excel data allegedly maintained by him in a pen drive seized from his residence. The Assessing Officer has further drawn support from the statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh, who admitted that unaccounted cash was received in the project and offered 8% thereof as income in the hands of the developer concern. However, the crucial question is not whether the searched party admitted receipt of some unaccounted cash in the project generally. The real question is whether there is legally admissible and reliable evidence establishing that this assessee, in particular, paid the specific sums added in the years under appeal. In our considered view, the answer has to be in the negative.

28. The first and foremost infirmity goes to the root of the matter. The assessee has consistently asserted that the complete excel sheet, which forms the very foundation of the addition, was never furnished. What is relied upon by the Revenue is not the complete data but selected extracts and narrative reproduction. Even the learned CIT(A), instead of furnishing the entire material and permitting the assessee to rebut the same, has merely reproduced portions of what is stated to be the excel data in the appellate order. The learned AR has specifically pointed out that the extracts reproduced at pages 46 to 49 of the appellate order relate only to five shops, whereas the assessee had purchased six shops, and further that the totals and year-wise derivation do not match. These factual objections, in our view, go to the reliability of the very document on which the addition rests. When the entire case is built upon an electronic record maintained by a third party, fairness required that the complete material be supplied to the assessee and the assessee be given meaningful opportunity to examine, explain, and rebut the same. That admittedly was not done. The grievance of the assessee on this aspect is also reflected in the written submissions extracted in the appellate record, wherein it was specifically urged that the complete excel sheet had not been supplied and that the date of payment was not mentioned in the relevant extract relied upon by the Department.

29. The second infirmity is equally fundamental. The year-wise bifurcation of the alleged cash payment is not borne out from any independently verifiable material on record. The assessee has consistently contended that the excel extract furnished did not contain any dates of payment and, therefore, there existed no rational basis for the Assessing Officer to apportion the alleged cash component across A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. The learned DR has pointed out that certain dates are reflected in the material relied upon by the Department; however, upon careful consideration, such dates could not be correlated with the impugned year-wise allocation of cash payments, nor do they establish any nexus with the figures attributed to the respective assessment years. The show cause notice issued by the Department does contain a year-wise tabulation; however, such tabulation merely represents the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer and does not constitute self-evident or corroborative evidence. The underlying source data forming the basis of such bifurcation was not furnished in entirety to the assessee. In the absence of complete disclosure of the primary material, the assessee was effectively deprived of a meaningful opportunity to controvert the proposed allocation. In these circumstances, the mere reproduction of figures in the show cause notice does not cure the inherent defect arising from non-confrontation of the foundational material.

30. Thirdly, the Revenue’s case suffers from lack of corroboration. The statement of Shri Imran Ansari is a third-party statement. It may, at the highest, trigger enquiry. It cannot, by itself and without corroboration, conclusively prove payment by a particular buyer who denies such payment. This position emerges consistently from the decisions of the co-ordinate benches placed before us. In Rajesh Jain (ITA No.3842/Mum/2025), the Co-ordinate Bench, while dealing with the same search, the same project, and the same species of allegation, held in clear terms that:

“We notice that the AO has made the addition on the basis of evidence found in the premises of third party and also on the basis of deposition made by the employee of the third party. No corroborative material was brought on record to support the statement so given, which is mandatory when the assessee denies any such payment.” (para 16)

31. The Co-ordinate Bench further held in the same case that where the addition was made on the basis of evidence found in the premises of a third party and on the basis of deposition made by the employee of that third party, such addition could not be sustained in the absence of corroborative material and in the absence of cross-examination.

32. Likewise, in Bhavana Vikram Jain(ITA 6363/Mum/2025), which again arose from the same Rubberwala search and same “Platinum Mall” project, the Co­ordinate Bench recorded that the Revenue’s sole reliance was on the statements of Shri Imran Ansari and the excel sheet found from the pen drive retrieved from his possession. The Co-ordinate Bench then proceeded to delete the additions on the footing that there was no material to suggest that the assessee had made cash payment in the years in question, and that the Revenue’s case rested only on such third-party material.

33. Similarly, in Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra / Lilaram (ITA No.5553 & 5554/Mum/2025), the Revenue had argued that all material and statement references were mentioned in the show cause notice and that the searched party had admitted on-money and offered 8% thereof. Yet, despite noticing this very departmental argument, the co-ordinate bench held the additions unsustainable and followed Pravin Khetaramm Purohit (ITA No.4742/Mum/2025). The Co-ordinate Bench noted that the addition was solely based on third-party information, there was no corroborative evidence of payment of on-money, the key person had not specifically taken the assessee’s name, and the entire addition was based on presumption.

34. In Bharat Solanki (ITA No.6523/Mum/2025), the co­ordinate bench has carried the reasoning still further and, after examining the same factual matrix, observed that the additions were made solely on the basis of statements of Shri Imran Ansari and the data contained in the excel sheet retrieved from the pen drive found from his possession, while no incriminating material was found from the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench noted that the assessee had categorically denied having paid any cash and that such third-party statements and electronic records, uncorroborated by independent evidence and not directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition.

35. We are in respectful agreement with the above line of reasoning. Judicial discipline demands that a co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts be followed unless a distinguishing feature of substance is shown. Here, far from there being a distinguishing feature against the assessee, the factual deficiencies in the Department’s case stand reinforced.

36. The learned DR attempted to distinguish the above decisions by contending that in those cases cross-examination was asked for, whereas in the present case no such request was made. We are unable to accept this distinction as sufficient to take a different view. In the peculiar facts before us, the assessee’s case is that the show cause notice dated 23.03.2024 itself was not received on her registered email address on the portal and, therefore, she was deprived of the opportunity to respond, seek documents, or ask for cross-examination. This specific plea has been raised in rebuttal and goes to the root of the matter. Once the assessee’s case is that the notice itself was not effectively served, the Department cannot legitimately argue that the assessee ought to have sought cross-examination in response to that very notice. The opportunity contemplated by law is a real and effective opportunity, not a notional one.

37. Even otherwise, in our view, the issue is not merely of cross-examination. The more fundamental issue is one of credible evidence. Where the addition is based solely on third-party statements and third-party electronic records, and the assessee denies the payment, the Revenue must bring some cogent material connecting the assessee with the actual payment. No such evidence has been brought on record. No cash trail has been shown. No withdrawal pattern has been linked. No acknowledgment of receipt from the assessee has been found. No diary allegedly given to the buyer was found from the assessee. Indeed, one of the recurring features noticed in the cited decisions is that though the searched employee spoke of a diary maintained for such cash transactions, no such diary was recovered from the assessees. This aspect was noticed in Rajesh Jain and again in Bharat Solanki, where the absence of the diary materially weakened the evidentiary value of the statement.

38. The Revenue’s further reliance on the statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh, wherein he admitted that the developer group had received cash and offered 8% of the same as additional income, also does not carry the matter any further. Such admission may be relevant in the assessment of the searched party. However, the acceptance by the seller that some unaccounted receipts existed in the project does not automatically prove that every particular buyer paid the amount noted against him in the internal records. The co-ordinate benches have consistently rejected this very departmental premise. In Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra / Lilaram, despite the specific departmental argument that the Rubberwala group had accepted on-money and offered 8%, the Co-ordinate Bench still held that acceptance of third party cannot become the sole basis of addition against the assessee unless corroborative evidence or evidence of actual payment is found. In the same vein, the appellate submissions extracted in the present record also rightly contend that the appellant cannot be burdened merely because one party decided to “buy peace of mind” by offering a small percentage of the alleged receipts.

39. There is yet another aspect. The learned AR has pointed out that the extracts reproduced by the learned CIT(A) relate only to five shops even though the assessee had purchased six shops, and that the totals derived by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) do not tally. The Department has not shown before us any complete reconciled working from the source excel sheet, duly confronted to the assessee, explaining this discrepancy. When the very arithmetic and completeness of the primary material are under challenge, and the entire excel sheet is not before the assessee for rebuttal, it would be unsafe to sustain an addition under section 69 on such uncertain foundation.

40. The learned DR also argued that the assessee did not specifically answer Question No. 13 in the notice under section 142(1). In our view, that submission does not rescue the assessment. First, a non-answer to a departmental query cannot relieve the Revenue of its burden to prove the factum of unexplained investment when the assessee denies the transaction. Secondly, the material relied upon must itself be legally and fairly confronted. Thirdly, the grievance of the assessee is not only about lack of response opportunity but about non-supply of the complete incriminating material and non-receipt of the show cause notice itself. An adverse inference cannot be elevated into substantive proof where the foundation evidence is itself fragile and inadequately confronted.

41. We also find merit in the assessee’s objection that the statement of Shri Imran Ansari, as narrated in the orders, is at a generic level. It explains the general modus operandi of the project and states that cash components were part of sale consideration. But a general statement about modus operandi cannot substitute proof of actual payment by a particular buyer. This distinction has been emphasised in the co-ordinate bench decisions. In Bharti Jayanti Jain, the Co-ordinate Bench observed that the key person had not specifically taken the name of the assessee, that there was no independent or corroborative evidence for payment of on-money, and that the addition was solely based on third-party information. The Co-ordinate Bench, after following Rajesh Jain, Bhavana Vikram Jain, Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra, and Pravin Khetaramm Purohit, deleted the additions.

42. Applying the same principle here, we hold that the addition cannot be sustained merely because the internal records of the seller or its employee allegedly reflect a cash component. Internal records of a third party, without independent supporting evidence against the assessee and without full confrontation of the underlying data, remain at best a suspicious circumstance. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, particularly in proceedings under section 69 where a specific unexplained investment is sought to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.

43. The learned CIT(A) sought to distinguish Rajesh Jain and other cases. We are unable to approve such distinction. In our considered opinion, the material features of the present case are the same: same searched group, same project, same employee, same pen drive, same genre of excel data, same allegation of on-money, same denial by the assessee, and same lack of corroborative material recovered from the assessee. Once that is so, the ratio of the co-ordinate bench decisions squarely applies. In fact, Bharti Jayanti Jain concerns three assessment years and an assessee similarly alleged to have paid on-money in “Platinum Mall”; the Co-ordinate Bench held the matter covered by Rajesh Jain, Bhavana Vikram Jain, Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra, and Pravin Khetaramm Purohit, and allowed the assessee’s appeals. We see no reason to depart from that consistent view.

44. Before parting, we clarify that our decision rests on the merits of the addition. Since we are deleting the additions under section 69 on merits, founded on want of credible corroborative evidence and violation of the principles of natural justice in effective confrontation of the material, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate the broader jurisdictional challenge in these appeals. The same is left open.

45. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the additions made under section 69 for A. Ys . 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are unsustainable. The Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned additions merely on the basis of third-party statements and third-party electronic data, without furnishing the complete material, without establishing a reliable year-wise nexus, and without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to prove that the assessee in fact made the alleged cash payments over and above the documented consideration. We, therefore, direct deletion of the additions made in all the three years.

46. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026.