POOJA TYAGI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3738/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2022-233 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It found no merit in the assessee's arguments that the agreement was not proved or that she was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the vendor. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' findings were based on the recitals in the agreement, which indicated a cheque payment followed by an on-money component. The Tribunal observed that these findings had not been successfully rebutted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the impugned addition and confirmed it in its entirety. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pooja Tyagi, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, representing an alleged on-money component payment made by the assessee to her vendor, Sh. Anubhav Sharma, on November 6, 2021. This addition was made in the assessment order dated March 27, 2024, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The lower authorities relied on the agreement between the assessee and the vendor, which indicated a cheque payment of Rs. 5 lakhs on October 30, 2021, and the impugned cash component of Rs. 20 lakhs on November 6, 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs as an on-money component is valid, considering the assessee's contention that the agreement was not proved against her and she was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the vendor? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - The lower authorities failed to prove the agreement in question against the assessee. - The assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the vendor. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue, but it is implied that the revenue supported the addition made by the lower authorities based on the agreement and the assessee's failure to rebut it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: CA Sh. Aditya Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pooja Tyagi, A-1/277A, Janak Puri, Ward-43(1), A-3, West Delhi, Delhi Delhi PAN: AHVPT3241J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pranshu Goel, CA Sh. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2022-23, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076146553(1), dated 09.05.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

A perusal of the instant appeal file reveals that both the learned lower authorities have added an alleged on-money component payment of Rs.20 lakhs by the assessee made to her vendor, namely, Sh. Anubhav Sharma amounting to Rs.20 lakhs on 06.11.2021 in assessment order dated 27.03.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have proceeded to make the impugned addition going by the corresponding recitals in the agreement in question executed between the assessee and her vendor wherein she appears to have signed and agreed for having made cheque payment of Rs.5 lakhs on 30th October, 2021 and the impugned cash component of Rs.20 lakhs on 06.11.2021; respectively.

4.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel seeks to buttress the point that neither both the lower authorities have proved the agreement in question at her behest nor she was ever provided opportunity to cross-examine the vendor; as the case may be. This tribunal hereby finds no merit in the either of the assessee’s foregoing arguments in light of both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings herein that the assessee had made cheque payment on 30th October, 2021 followed by the on-money component which have nowhere been rebutted successfully till

2 | P a g e date. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the impugned addition, which is hereby confirmed in very terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →