Additions under section 153C based solely on third-party statements and seized data unsustainable without confrontation of material, cross-examination opportunity, and independent corroboration, violating natural justice principles.

ORDER

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1. These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai dated 09.08.2025, arising out of assessments framed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since common issues are involved in all the appeals and the assessee is the same, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. The brief facts emerging from the record are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Rubberwala Group on 17.03.2021. During the course of search, statement of Shri Imran Ansari, stated to be an employee of the group handling sale and registration of shops in Platinum Mall, was recorded and certain digital data in the form of an Excel sheet was stated to have been found from his possession. Based on the said material, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the present assessee had purchased shops in Platinum Mall and had allegedly paid cash component aggregating to Rs.53,23,952/- spread over the impugned assessment years. Accordingly, proceedings under section 153C were initiated and additions were made in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 4,00,000/- in A.Y. 2017-18, Rs.15,33,652/- in A.Y. 2018-19 & Rs. Rs.33,90,300/- in A.Y. 2019-20. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions and the assessee is in further appeal before us. For brevity the grounds raised in A.Y 2017-18 are reproduced as under.:

“1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in upholding the addition levied by Assessing Officer of Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act.

2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in ignoring that fact that there is no incriminating material unearthed by Assessing Officer in case of the appellant u/s. 153C of the Act.

3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in considering the fact that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction and no material for re- opening u/s. 153C of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18.

4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in ignoring the fact that no satisfaction note has been received to the appellant from his Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as prescribed u/s. 153C of the Act.

5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in not considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition u/s. 69 of the Act solely on the basis of statements of Mr. Imran Ansari and Mr. Tabrez Shaikh, without any corroborative evidence.

6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has made an arbitrary bifurcation of the sum of Rs. 53,23,952/- without assigning any cogent reasoning, findings, or evidentiary basis for such allocation.

7) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. CIT(A) -52, Mumbai has erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant has purchased the Shop No. 93, 94 and 95 at 'Platinum Mall' being developed by M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. by way