RIDHI GROVER,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3516/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09
Smt. Ridhi Grover, Vs. ACIT, 4, Ram Kishore Road, Circle-20(1), Civil Line, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AFEPG5003L (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Ms. Manju Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 01.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 30.11.2022
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
05.03.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32,
New Delhi, for the assessment year 2008-09.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of
an amount of Rs.37,22,940/- towards alleged on-money paid in
cash towards purchase of a property.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual.
For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed her
return of income on 30.03.2009 declaring of Rs.6,39,889/-.
ITA No.3516/Del/2019 AY: 2008-09
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information that the
assessee had paid on-money in cash towards purchase of
immovable property from a builder, namely, AEZ Group. The
information received by the Assessing Officer revealed that in
course of a search/survey operation conducted in case of the
builder it was found that the builder has received on-money in
cash from various customers towards sale of property. Based on
the information received, the Assessing Officer found that the
total amount paid to the builder was to the tune of
Rs.63,15,840/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.25,92,900/- was
paid through cheque and the balance amount of Rs.37,22,940/-
was paid in cash. He further found that in course of
search/survey operation a number of investors have accepted of
having made cash payment for purchasing the property. In course
of assessment proceeding, the assessee was called upon to
explain the source of cash payment. Though, the assessee
accepted the payment made in cheque, however, she denied of
having made any cash payment. However, rejecting the
explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer added back an
amount of Rs.37,22,940/-, being alleged cash payment to the
builder, to the income of the assessee. The assessee contested the 2 | P a g e
ITA No.3516/Del/2019 AY: 2008-09
aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals).
However, the addition was sustained.
I have considered rival submissions and perused the
materials on record. Short issue arising for consideration is,
whether the assessee has paid on-money in cash towards
purchase of a property. Undisputedly, based on certain
information received in course of search/survey operation
conducted in case of the builder, the Assessing Officer has made
the disputed addition. However, in course of proceedings before
the departmental authorities, the assessee had stoutly denied of
having paid any on-money in cash, over and above the amount
paid in cheque. It is observed, except, the information stated to
have been gathered during the search/survey operation, the
Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material which
can conclusively establish the payment of on-money by the
assessee.
On the contrary, in course of the proceeding before the first
appellate authority, a direction was issued to the Assessing
Officer to inquire into assessee’s claim that no on-money was
paid. In the remand report dated 23.08.2017, a copy of which is
placed in the paper book, the Assessing Officer has clearly stated 3 | P a g e
ITA No.3516/Del/2019 AY: 2008-09
that in response to summons issued under section 131 of the Act,
the builder furnished a reply stating that no amount in cash was
received towards sale of the property. Further, it is interesting to
note that in case of the concerned builder, the Assessing Officer
made an assessment under section 153C read with section 143(3)
of the Act for assessment year 2008-09 by adding back an
amount of Rs.17,10,07,792/- representing alleged on money
received in cash to the income of the assessee. However, while
deciding the appeal of the builder, learned first appellate
authority, in order dated 29.09.2015, deleted the addition made
on account of alleged receipt of on-money in cash. Further, the
sole material available with the Assessing Officer, based on which
the addition was made is Annexure -27 seized from the builder. A
perusal of the said seized document reveals, it merely shows
certain payments received in check and cash in respect of certain
persons/entities. However, no other documentary evidences have
been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to corroborate
the authenticity of the figures mentioned in the seized material.
Even, in post search proceeding neither the builder, nor the
assessee have accepted the payment/receipt of on- money. That
being the case, in absence of any other material to corroborate 4 | P a g e
ITA No.3516/Del/2019 AY: 2008-09
the facts found in the solitary seized document, no addition can
be made at the hands of the assessee.
In view of the aforesaid, I delete the addition made. In view
of my decision on merits, the legal grounds, being merely of
academic importance, are not adjudicated.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th November, 2022
Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 30th November, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
5 | P a g e
