SUMAN CHAUDHARY,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(4),FBD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7266/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than specific incriminating material to support the on-money allegation. There was no actual evidence against the assessee to buttress the claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 pertains to an addition of Rs. 23,28,929/- made on account of alleged on-money payment to a developer. This addition was based on material seized during a search action.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of on-money payment was supported by sufficient incriminating material and evidence, or was based on mere assumptions and presumptions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7266/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Suman Chaudhary, E-51, Kapil Vihar Sector- Ward 1(4), 21C, Faridabad, Haryana- Faridabad, 121001 CR Building, Faridabad, Haryana- 122001 PAN: AEKPC9153Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Charitra Gupta, CA, & Sh. Deepak Garg, CA Department by Sh. Mangali Venkata Ramesh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2026-27/1089615113(1), dated 11.06.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3)/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No. 7266/Del/2026

2.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings that the assessee/appellant herein has rightly been assessed for having paid on-money of Rs. 23,28,929/- to the developer M/s. Bhutani Infra Group as per departmental authorities’ search action having found/seized the corresponding incriminating material on 30.07.2018.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the impugned addition. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that both the learned lower authorities have more gone by mere assumptions and presumptions than having discussed any specific incriminating material indicating the assessee to have made the impugned on-money payment to the searched party in question. It is further emphasized that there is no indication in the assessment order or in the lower appellate discussion taking not any actual evidence against the assessee to buttress the on-money allegation against him. I thus find no merit

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 7266/Del/2026

in the impugned addition of Rs. 23,28,929/- which is hereby

deleted in very terms.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.09.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →