IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5831/MUM/2025 (AY: 2017-18) ITA No. 5832/MUM/2025 (AY: 2018-19)

(Hybrid hearing)

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) – 52, Mumbai both dated 01.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19. In both the appeals, certain facts in both the years are common, thus, with the consent of both the parties, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of fact, facts in ITA No. 5831/M/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, without proper appreciation of facts and law.

2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition merely on surmises and assumptions, without bringing any cogent material on record to establish the existence of such investment alleged to have been made by the appellant.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition without providing the appellant an effective opportunity of cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon, thereby violating the principles of natural justice."

4. The authorities below erred in ignoring the specific submissions and documentary evidence filed by the appellant in response to the Show Cause Notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as the explanation tendered was not duly considered before making or sustaining the addition.

5. The addition under section 69 is unsustainable as there was no finding of any investment, cash payment, or unexplained asset in the appellant's possession, nor was there any trace in the books of account, bank statements, or other evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer.

6. The lower authorities erred in placing reliance on mere allegations regarding a supposed payment to M/s. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, in the absence of any corroborative trail or independent verification to substantiate such a claim.

7. The appellate order suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as it disregarded the evidence furnished by the appellant and proceeded to confirm the addition in a mechanical manner, solely based on conjectures.

8. The appellant submits that the burden of proof under section 69 lies on the Revenue to demonstrate the existence of unexplained investment, however, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have failed to discharge this burden.

9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered by various decisions of Mumbai Tribunal including in case of Akhraj Pukhraj Chopra in ITA No. 5553, 5555, 5554 & 5557/Mum/2025. While explaining the facts, the ld., AR of the assessee submits that a search action was carried out in case of Rubberwala group, Mumbai on 17.03.2021. During the search action, statement of key person of Rubberwala group was recorded. In the statement, one of the key person namely Imran Ansari allegedly made statement that they have developed Platinum Mall and while making booking of various units / shops the group collected ‘on- money’. On the basis of such statement, case of assessee was reopened after recording satisfaction under section 153C. The assessing officer made addition on the basis of alleged s