ADITYA GULATI,BULAND SHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, BULAND SHAHR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete incriminating material. There was no actual evidence presented to support the allegation of on-money payment by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2021-22, arising from proceedings under section 147. The Assessing Officer made an addition for alleged on-money payment to a developer, based on material seized during a search.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition for alleged on-money payment was substantiated by incriminating material, or based on assumptions and presumptions by the revenue authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4787/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Aditya Gulati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 19, Inta Rori, Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh – 203001 PAN: CDQPG9224H (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 30.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 10.08.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, 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/250/2026-27/1088647311(1), dated 27.04.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ respective
ITA No.4787/Del/2026
assessments and lower appellate findings that the assessee/appellant herein has rightly been assessed u/s 69/69A for having paid on-money of Rs.23,12,128/- to the developer M/s. Bhutani group and received Rs.10,07,370/-; totalling to Rs.33,19,498/- as per departmental authorities’ action having found/seized the corresponding incriminating material in search action on 04.01.2024. 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 their respective assumptions and presumptions than having discussed any 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 discussing any actual evidence against the assessee to buttress the on-money allegation. I thus find no merit in the impugned addition of Rs.33,19,498/- which is hereby deleted in very terms.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.4787/Del/2026
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th August, 2026. RK/- 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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026