RASHI GUPTA SHARMA,DEHRA DUN vs. ACIT, DEHRA DUN

ITA Nos.303/DDN/2026 & 305/DDN/2026 RASHI GUPTA SHARMA & SUMIT SHARMA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC” DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.303/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 RASHI GUPTA SHARMA, Vs. ACIT, 1 Chirag Delhi, South Delhi, Central Circle Dehradun, Delhi 110017. Uttarakhand 248001. PAN No. AVPPG1578H Appellant Respondent & ITA No.305/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 SUMIT SHARMA, Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF A-4, 1104, Cherry County, INCOME TAX (ACIT), Noida Extension, Gautam Budh Central Circle Dehradun, Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306. Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001. PAN No. EFHPS9171G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Anand Singh Rawat, CA Revenue by Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT Date of hearing: 22.07.2026 Pronouncement on 07.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The appeal in ITA No.303/DDN/2026 arises from order dated 01.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida.

1.1 The appeal in ITA No.305/DDN/2026 arises from order dated 01.04.2026, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida u/s 250 of the Act. In this case

ITA Nos.303/DDN/2026 & 305/DDN/2026 RASHI GUPTA SHARMA & SUMIT SHARMA also it is seen that the same residential property as in ITA No.303/DDN/2026 was purchased in joint name with wife of the assessee, being the subject matter of appeal in ITA No.303/DDN/2026. Accordingly, both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order.

1.2 In these cases, the assessee Shri Sumit Sharma in ITA No.305 is admittedly working as a Public Sector employee. He had purchased a property jointly with his wife (Rashi Gupta Sharma), assessee in ITA 303/DDN/2026. Both the assessees jointly purchased a residential property for Rs.35 lakhs. The circle value of the said property was Rs.11,24,630/- on the date of the said purchase. It is seen that a search and seizure action was carried out on 02.02.2022 on Shri Krishna Sharma and Sheetal Sharma. During the course of such search, documents were seized indicating the purchase of land by the assessees concerned. Reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessees with issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added an amount of Rs.2,06,500/- each with the following observations extracted from ITA No.303/DDN/2026: -

“5. The above details have been verified from the copy of registered deed furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. On matching of the information contained in the registered deed and information contained in the above mentioned seized document, it is found that date, sale consideration, khasra number, area, name of seller and purchaser is completely matched. Thus, the information contained in the seized document is an authentic and verifiable document and hence has evidentiary value. It is seen that in the last column of documents, there is clear mention of Rs.4,13,000/-. This amount has nexus with the dealings in the property sale/purchase. It is 2

ITA Nos.303/DDN/2026 & 305/DDN/2026 RASHI GUPTA SHARMA & SUMIT SHARMA very common well known facts that in purchase and sale of property, seller demands over and excess cash before transferring the property to the purchaser. This over and excess money in common parlance is called ‘on money’ which every purchaser has to pay, if demanded by the seller. Although, there is no direct evidence that seller demanded on money, yet in the most probable facts and circumstances of the case, mentioning of Rs.4,13,000/- in the verifiable and authenticated seized documents represents the ‘on money’ paid by the assessee in cash for purchase of property. Particularly in view of the fact that details of property as per registered deed and the details mentioned in the seized document is completely matched. As the assessee is holding of only 1/2nd share of the said property, thus the cash payment of Rs.2,06,500/- (1/2 of Rs.4,13,000/-) is treated as undisclosed investment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC also initiated for determination of income under section 69. Addition: Rs.2,06,500/-” 1.3 The aggrieved assessees approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also they could not succeed as the action of Ld. AO was affirmed.

1.4 Further aggrieved the assessees have approached the ITAT with several grounds which challenge the addition on merit.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

ITA Nos.303/DDN/2026 & 305/DDN/2026 RASHI GUPTA SHARMA & SUMIT SHARMA 3. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record before us. It is seen from a plain reading of the Ld. AO’s order (supra) that indeed the additions have been made on surmises and conjectures. Accordingly, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the finding of Ld. AO in this regard.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI