Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/- made under Section 69B for undisclosed investment during an assessment under Section 153A. The addition was based on alleged unaccounted on-money payment by the assessee in relation to a property agreement.
Held
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the Revenue's grounds. It was noted that the assessee's name did not appear in the agreement dated 04.04.2011, which was the basis for the undisclosed investment addition.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/- for undisclosed investment under Section 69B, particularly when the assessee's name was not present in the relevant agreement.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 69B, 131
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. Sh. Raj Bala Garg, Central Circle, H. No. 56, Gandhi Mandi, Karnal Panipat, Haryana PAN: ACJPG6112E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Paritosh Jain, Adv. Sh. Rajat Jain, CA Sh. Akshat Jain, CA Department by Sh. Rajesh Chandra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.08.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s order dated 20.05.2022 passed in case no. 71/2018-19, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
This Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/-ignoring the fact that same pattern was used by family members of the assessee wherein Smt. Nisha Aggarwal was used as conduit to acquire properties at higher values and then executing registries in other's name subsequently as per stamp duty. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/-overlooking the fact that the same pattern was observed in one other deal of property in which purchaser was Smt. Nisha Aggarwal but finally registered sale deed was executed in the name of Sh. Vishal Garg (Son of the assessee) and the differential amount between agreement and value as per stamp duty has been disclosed before Hon'ble ITSC in his firm. iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/-overlooking the fact that assessee failed to produce Smt. Kavita Aggarwal & Smt. Nisha Aggarwal for verification of the facts narrated in their affidavits submitted before the AO. iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/-ignoring the fact that in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act issued to Smt. Kavita Aggarwal & Smt. Nisha Aggarwal, no one appeared before the AO for cross verification. v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,78,938/-ignoring the fact that signature of Smt. Kavita Aggarwal is identical to the signature put at the time of confronting the said agreement by DDIT(Inv.). vi. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal
before the appeal is heard or disposed off.
3. It transpires during the course of hearing that there is hardly much a need for us to deal with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing
2 | P a g e Officer had finalized his section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A assessment in the assessee’s case in furtherance to the search in question dated 22.06.2016; making section 69B undisclosed investment addition amounting to Rs.4,48,78,938/- as representing the unaccounted on-money payment made at her behest. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion at page 3 onwards has extracted a copy of the said agreement dated 04.04.2011 wherein even the assessee’s name does not figure in the corresponding recitals that she had made any such payment which could form subject matter of section 69B addition.
Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground seeking to revive the foregoing assessment findings making the impugned addition in the assessee’s hands hardly carries any merit therein. We accordingly uphold the learned CIT(A)’s findings in deleting the impugned addition in the assessee’s hands. The Revenue’s instant sole substantive grounds fails therefore. All the remaining pleadings raised herein at the Revenue’s behest stands rendered academic.