IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.681/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23)

Roshan Babulal Jain v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Champion House, Bhavani बनाम Income Tax, 8th Floor, Peth, Pune – 411 042, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Maharashtra Annexe, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ASEPS9930M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri R. C.Doshi, (Virtually present)

Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

11.12.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 48, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 16.02.2024 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts as well as in law confirming the addition of Rs. 49,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant. Appellant prays your Honour to direct the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete the addition.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has earned both on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition under Sec 69A of the Income Tax Act It is the contention of the Appellant that provisions of Sec

69A are not applicable to the facts of the case.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has earned both on facts as well as in law is not considering the following additional Grounds of Appeal raised by Assessee before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

a. The order u/s 143(3) passed on 16/02/2024 bearing DIN No.

ITBA/AST/F/17/2023-24/1061043902(1) is bad-in-law, illegal and void-ab-initio on various ground including -

i. Multiple DINs - The said order passed us. 143(3) bears multiple DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2023-24/1061043902(1) ITBA/AST M/143(3)/2023-24/1061055589(1), ITBA/AST/M/143(3)/2023- 24/1061055600(1), ITBA/AST/M/143(3)/2023-24/1061055610(1) which is not in accordance with mandatory circular issued by CBDT.

ii. The order is passed without providing full copy of statement of Ms.

Meixia Huang director of Fengyuan India Private Limited recorded u/s 132(4). This is gross violation of Principals of natural justice.

3. Ground no.1 and 2 are interlinked and are adjudicated together.Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual taxpayer engaged in the business of trading in Salt carried on under the name “Crest International” filed return of income for the impugned year declaring income of Rs. 5,74,474/-.Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. During a search proceeding in the case of one M/s Fengyuan India Pvt. Ltd.(‘FIPL’)conducted on 16.11.2021 in the course of which statement of one of the Directors Ms Mexia Hunag was also recorded. In response to Q. no. 17 of thestatement recordedu/s. 132(4) of the Act, Ms. Meixia stated that the company had paid Rs. 49 lakh in cash over and above the agreement value to the assessee for purchase of a piece of land in Dahej, Gujarat. Further, about the source of cash, she stated that it was out of the cash generated through fake invoices. The relevant question and answer are as below:

Q:17 Please state for what purposes you used this cash?

Ans: Sir, I had made a deal to buy a piece of land in Dahej Gujarat from Sh.Roshan Babglal Jian. His PAN is ASEPS9930M.The deal was of about 4.99 crore. This amount was paid from banking channels to him. He further demanded Rs.49 lakhs in cash. That's why I had to pay him cash.

3.1 In view of the above factual position, a summon was issued by the AO to the assessee and statement was recorded u/s131 of the Act