IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6756/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Mayuri Hitendra Shah v/s. Assessing Officer, Income Plot No. 4, Shreenathji Co-op बनाम Tax Office, Vashi Railway Society, Sector No. 14, Vashi Station Building, Navi Navi Mumbai – 400 703, Mumbai – 400 703, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं ./ जीआइआर सं ./ PAN/GIR No: AMLPS5425J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Assessee by : Shri Rajan Kothari,AR Revenueby : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

29.09.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 26.05.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. Denial of Natural Justice-Cross Examination Refused:

The learned AO and CIT(A) erred is relying upon seized registers and third- party statements of Bhagwati Developers without granting cross- examination or confrontation of the deponents, contrary to law laid down in Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (SC), Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713 SC), and Anil Mohanlal Vira v. ITO (NFAC Order 10 Jan 2025). The entire addition is vitiated.

2. Reliance on Uncorroborated and Generic Evidence:

The so-called 'cash register does not contain the name of the appellant, signature, or counter-receipt linking any cash to her. Per Picasso Developers v. ΙΤΟ (ΙΤΑΤ 2024) and Viswa Vyapar Trading v. DCIT (ITAT Mum), generic entries cannot justify addition u/s 69A without specific identification and corroboration.

3. Contradictory Findings in CIT(A) Order Para 7.4(ii)/(iv):

The CIT(A) acknowledged that ₹75 lakhs were paid via bank cheque but nonetheless treated 1 crore as unexplained cash, ignoring bank flow evidence. Such contradiction renders the order perverse (Anil Mohanlal Vira, NFAC 2025).

4. No Proof of Cash Receipt or Modus Operandi:

The AO failed to identify who accepted the alleged 21 crore cash, how it was transacted, or how the builder's records correlate to the assessee. Per Picasso Developers ITAT 2024, burden lies on Revenue to prove identity, transaction mode, and receipt chain.

5. Improper Application of Section 69A:

Addition u/s 69A requires proof that the assessee was found possessing unexplained money. No cash was found or seized, payment was through bank. Hence, section 69A is inapplicable (CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 SC).

6. Non-Consideration of Statutory Value under Section 50C and Index-II:

When the registered value is higher than fair market value (Stamp/Index-II), allegation of under-valuation or on-money is misconceived. AO ignored statutory deeming fiction under s. 50C.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee deriving income from rental income and income from partnership firm M/s. Mahaprabhu Enterprises had filed return of income declaring income for Rs 6,83,920/-. As per information available, consequent to search and survey action was conducted in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Developers who is a builder and developer on October 15, 2018, it was revealed that the assessee had purchased a flat at consideration of Rs 75,00,000/- and had made „On money‟ payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Thus, total investment of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was made by assessee during previous year to purchase the said immovable property. The AO added Rs. 1 cr. as unexplained deposit u/s 69 of the Act.

4. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee contested the action of the AO inter alia claiming an opportunity to cross examine the said sellers which was denied to him. The assessee had submi