IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

ACIT Circle-20(1) Jayesh Umakant Room No. 305, 3^rd Floor, Manania

131-6, Mani Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs.

Jain Society, Sion Mumbai-400 012 East, Mumbai-400022 PAN/GIR No. AACPM0547J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR Assessee by Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. AR Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 29.08.2025, whereby the Learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] vide order dated 26.12.2018 passed under section

143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 27.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 30,00,378/-, which was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle– 8(4), Mumbai, based on search under section 132 conducted in the case of Shri Pankaj Dhanji Goshar on 10.09.2015, and Survey under section 133A in the case of M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF, a real estate developer.

3. The material forwarded included images and loose paper details extracted from the iPhone of Shri Pankaj Goshar, allegedly recording cash receipts pertaining to booking of flats in the project “Vivaria” by members of the Manania family. According to the information, out of the total cash receipts of Rs. 12.50 crores recorded therein, a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was stated to pertain to the assessee during the relevant previous year. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 on 30.03.2018.

4. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the seized materials and the mobile phone data retrieved from the device used by Shri Pankaj Goshar.

According to the Assessing Officer, the data reflected specific dates, amounts, and mode of payment indicating alleged cash transactions for flats purchased in the Vivaria project. The Assessing Officer also issued a detailed show-cause notice, reproduced in the assessment order, alleging that the assessee had made a cash payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for booking two flats in the project.

5. The assessee denied having made any cash payments, asserted that no flats were booked during A.Y. 2012–13, and contended that all subsequent payments were through normal banking channels. The assessee also submitted that the seized materials did not belong to him, were not authored by him, and originated from a third party. Statements of Shri Pankaj Goshar and Shri Ajay Vishrani, relied upon by the department, were also stated to contain categorical denials of receiving any cash from the assessee. Cross-examination of Shri Pankaj Goshar was conducted, wherein he reiterated that no cash was received from the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, treated these denials as unreliable and held that the seized electronic material sufficiently established that an unexplained cash payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was made by the assessee.The Assessing Officer accordingly made an addition under section 69A, treating the amount as unexplained investment.

6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee raised legal as well as grounds on merit. The assessee also filed Additional Grounds, contending that the proceedings ought to have been initiated under secti