The case revolves around Bhagawati M Jain from Dombivli East, Kalyan, who bought a shop in 2017 from M/s. Patel Enterprises (linked to the Bhagawati Developers group) for an official price of ₹29,50,000 — all paid legitimately through bank channels.

How the Drama Unfolded: Timeline of Events

• June 23, 2017 — Shop purchase agreement signed; full payment via bank, no cash involved as per buyer.
• October 15, 2018 — Income Tax raids the builder group under section 132. A key figure, Shri Kulin Shantilal Vora (partner/manager), admits in his statement that the group took extra cash (“on-money”) from various buyers on many deals — but the admission is broad and general, with no name, no specific shop, and no document pointing to this buyer.
• 2021–2022 — Raid info hits the department’s Insight portal. Officers spot the shop’s higher stamp-duty value (₹37,20,500) and jump to the conclusion that this buyer secretly paid ₹21.99 lakh extra in cash.
• March 8, 2022 — Notice under section 148A(b) to reopen the 2018-19 case (no original return filed). Buyer accused of hiding ₹21.99 lakh as undisclosed investment.
• March 14, 2022 — Buyer strongly denies any cash payment, shares bank proofs, demands full evidence from the raid, copies of the builder’s statement, and the right to cross-examine Vora.
• April 8, 2022 — Reopening notice issued under section 148; buyer files return declaring ₹5,00,130 income.
• 2022–2024 — In reassessment, buyer keeps pushing for proof and cross-examination. Officers stick to the general builder statement (no direct link to him) and refuse cross-examination, calling it unnecessary since it covered “multiple parties.”
• February 26, 2024 — Assessment finalized: ₹21.99 lakh added under section 69B as unexplained cash investment; extra tax demanded.
• February 19, 2025 — First appeal (NFAC/CIT Appeals) upholds the addition, saying hearing was given and cross-exam not needed for a “general” statement.
• December 22, 2025 — ITAT hears appeal (ITA No. 2408/MUM/2025).
• March 10, 2026 — ITAT ‘J’ Bench (Shri Pawan Singh, JM & Shri Girish Agrawal, AM) pronounces order: Addition deleted in full!

Why ITAT Called It Out

The Tribunal hit hard on two big flaws:

1. Zero Specific Proof — The builder’s confession was vague (“we took cash from many”) — no mention of this buyer, his shop, amount, or any raid-seized paper naming him. Suspicion alone isn’t evidence; department needed concrete links but had none.
2. Unfair Process — Buyer begged for cross-examination of Vora from day one. Officers said no. Tribunal ruled this breaks basic fairness (natural justice). They quoted Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries (2015): No cross-exam when relying on third-party statement? Order becomes invalid. Also cited KP Varghese (1981): Tax department must prove the extra payment — buyer doesn’t have to prove innocence.

Higher market value was noted but dismissed as not proof of black money. Other technical reopening issues weren’t even touched — merits alone sank the case.

This ruling sends a strong message in Maharashtra’s real estate scene: Raids on builders can’t lead to automatic “guilty by association” taxes on buyers without hard, specific evidence and fair play.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Clears Real Estate Developer of Fraud Allegations, Allows ₹1.79 Crore Tax Deduction

The post Builder Raided: IT Dept Accuses Buyer of ₹22 Lakh Black Money – ITAT Throws Out Case! appeared first on Square Feat India.