ITAT Mumbai Deletes “On-Money” Additions in Platinum Mall Case: No Addition Without Direct Evidence Against Assessee

1. Background of the Dispute

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Meena Lalit Jain Vs ACIT has set aside substantial additions made under Section 69 across three assessment years, arising out of alleged “on-money” (unaccounted cash) payments for acquisition of commercial shops in the Platinum Mall project of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd.

These appeals related to A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, where the Assessing Officer (AO), ACIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai, framed assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 30.03.2024. The orders were confirmed by the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai under Section 250 on 10.10.2025.

As all three years involved identical issues and common facts, the Tribunal passed a consolidated order, treating A.Y. 2017-18 as the lead year.

2. Search on Rubberwala Group and Alleged Incriminating Material

2.1 Search under Section 132

A search under Section 132 was conducted on 17.03.2021 in the Rubberwala Group and its connected entities/persons.

During the search, the Department claimed to have found:

• Statements recorded on oath of key persons involved in the project
• Electronic data in the form of an excel file stored in a pen drive
• Alleged records relating to cash components in sale transactions of shops in “Platinum Mall”

2.2 Basis for Invoking Section 153C Against the Assessee

On the premise that the seized data implicated various buyers in Platinum Mall, the AO recorded satisfaction under Section 153C that the seized material “belonged to” the assessee and initiated Section 153C proceedings.

A notice under Section 153C was issued on 26.07.2023. The assessee filed returns of income for all three years, repeating the income originally declared in the regular returns.

3. AO’s Allegation of “On-Money” and Additions under Section 69

3.1 Role of Third-Party Statements

During assessment, the AO primarily relied on:

• Statement of Shri Imran Ansari, who was stated to look after marketing, sale and registration of shops in Platinum Mall
• Statements of Shri Tabrez Shaikh, Director of M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd.
• An excel file allegedly titled “consolidated 1 2 3 balance”, retrieved from a pen drive seized from the residence of Shri Imran Ansari

In his statement, Shri Imran Ansari was said to have admitted that sale consideration for shops comprised:

• A cheque/recorded portion, and
• An unrecorded cash component

He also stated that such combined details were maintained in excel sheets.

On this basis, the AO alleged that the assessee had made cash payments over and above the documented agreement value for purchase of shops in Platinum Mall.

3.2 Quantum of Additions Year-Wise

The AO concluded that the assessee had allegedly made the following cash payments towards purchase of commercial shops:

• A.Y. 2017-18: Rs. 1,50,000/-
• A.Y. 2018-19: Rs. 14,79,288/-
• A.Y. 2019-20: Rs. 91,48,169/-

These were treated as unexplained investments under Section 69.

The position of income and assessment was as under:

3.3 Assessee’s Stand Before AO

The assessee, an individual and a housewife deriving mainly interest income, explained that:

• The documented purchase price for shops was funded from known sources, including savings and borrowings from family/friends.
• No material whatsoever was found from her premises during search.
• The AO had not provided a complete copy of the alleged excel sheet or any incriminating document directly concerning her.
• Additions based only on third-party statements and unverified electronic data, without any independent corroboration or cross-verification, were unjustified.

The AO, however, rejected the explanation and made additions in all three years under Section 69.

4. Proceedings Before CIT(A)

4.1 Grounds Urged

In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee assailed the additions on multiple counts, including:

• Non-supply of the full excel sheet said to contain incriminating details
• Denial of opportunity to cross-examine Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh
• Absence of dates or year-wise details in the alleged data supporting the year-wise allocation of cash payments
• Sole reliance on third-party material where the assessee’s name did not clearly appear in statements
• Incorrect reliance on acceptance of additions by other purchasers/developer as a ground to tax her

4.2 Order of CIT(A)

The CIT(A) upheld the additions by holding that:

• The material was seized in a valid search under Section 132 and formed part of search records.
• Statements recorded under oath and seized excel files provided sufficient basis for the additions.
• The assessee’s objections on non-supply/cross-examination did not, in CIT(A)’s view, vitiate the assessments.

The assessee, aggrieved, carried the matter to the ITAT.

5. Arguments Before ITAT