IN THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6136/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Assessee by Shri Akshay Jain Revenue by ShriSurendra Mohan, SR. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR,AM:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)–50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 31.07.2025, for Assessment Year 2022–23, whereby the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,25,64,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] vide order dated 02.06.2023 passed under section 143(3) of the Act.

Facts of the Case

2. The assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2022–23, the assessee filed his return of income electronically on 21.10.2022 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,83,99,630/-. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 31.12.2021 in the case of Bhoomi Group, during which the assessee was also covered as a key person of the group. The year under consideration corresponds to the previous year relevant to the year of search.The case was selected for scrutiny.

3. During the course of the search proceedings, cash amounting to Rs. 1,25,64,000/- was found from the residential premises of the assessee situated at 701, Bhoomi Building, Plot No. 79, JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai. Out of the said cash, a sum of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was seized and deposited in the PD account with SBI, Juhu Branch, while Rs. 3,14,000/- was returned.

4. The statement of the assessee was recorded on oath during the search proceedings, wherein he stated that the cash comprised personal cash as well as cash belonging to various group entities in which he was a partner, director or member. He expressed inability to provide bifurcation of the cash at that stage and stated that the sources of cash were withdrawals from bank, personal savings of family members and gifts. He further stated that the books of accounts of the group entities were not updated. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the total cash balance as per the books of accounts of various group entities as on the date of search was Rs. 2,16,68,169/-, which was more than the total cash found during search at different premises amounting to Rs. 2,15,77,500/-. The assessee also furnished details of cash-in-hand of family members as per books, aggregating to Rs. 15,45,431/-.

5. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation offered. He held that the assessee failed to substantiate, with documentary evidence, that the cash found at the residence belonged to group entities or family members. It was observed that no cash books or proof of withdrawals were produced even during assessment proceedings and that the statements made by the assessee were contradictory and inconsistent. The Assessing Officer treated the explanation as vague and an afterthought.

6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the cash of Rs. 1,25,64,000/- found at the residence of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The said addition was taxed under section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 271AAD were also initiated separately.

7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that the cash found during the search belonged to various entities of Bhoomi Group as well as to himself and h