Ramesh Kumar Puraji Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai ITAT deleted additions made u/s 69 towards alleged on-money payment in cash for purchase of a shop in the Platinum Mall project (Rubberwala Group search cases).
The Tribunal held that:
- The entire addition was based on a pen drive (Excel sheets) seized from a third party and statements of builder’s employees, without any direct evidence against the assessee
- No cash receipt, voucher, ledger, or incriminating document linking the assessee to cash payment was found
- The assessee had paid full consideration through banking channels, even higher than stamp duty value, negating the allegation of on-money
- Opportunity of cross-examination was not provided, violating principles of natural justice
- Electronic evidence (pen drive data) lacked Section 65B certification, making it unreliable
Relying on consistent coordinate bench rulings in identical Rubberwala cases, the ITAT held that mere suspicion or third-party material without corroboration cannot sustain addition.
Accordingly, the addition was deleted in full, and both appeals of the assessee were allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders of even dates as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the orders passed u/s. section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2019-20 & 2020-21. Since some of the issues are common and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity.
