ARCHANA GUPTA, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIRTUAL HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.1039/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Archana Gupta ITO Ward – 6(1) H. No. 3-L, Model Town, Ludhiana बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Punjab – 141005 Ludhiana, Punjab – 141001 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ABGPG-1993-D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Evandeep Singh (Advocate) for Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 03-08-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019- 20 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 17.06.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 22.03.2024. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of unexplained investment for Rs.23.12 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. From case records, it emerges that the assessee’s case was reopened since the assessee did not file return of income despite having certain financial transactions. One of the issues was payment

in cash to Omaxe Group. The assessee had purchased one flat in Omaxe on 03.04.2018 for Rs.23.37 Lacs which was sold on 16.11.2018 for Rs.24.75 Lacs. The purchase amount was stated to be paid through banking channels only and no cash component was paid to Omaxe Group as alleged by Ld. AO. The details of payment so made through banking channels were duly furnished by the assessee. However, Ld. AO, referring to search and seizure action on Omaxe Group on 14-03-2022, observed that the evidence of payment of on- money on property deal was found. On the basis of the same, it was alleged that the assessee made cash transactions with that group for Rs.23.12 Lacs which was found to be recorded in an excel files allegedly containing details of cash received from customers towards sale of units in various projects of Omaxe group. The assessee was also listed in the said file and the assessee was shown to have paid money of Rs.23.12 Lacs to that group on purchase of immovable property. Accordingly, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee stood rejected by Ld. AO which resulted into impugned addition in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. I find that identical issue has been decided by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anupama Gupta vs. ITO (ITA No.972/Chd/2025 dated 08-12-2025) wherein the bench deleted similar addition by observing as under: - 7. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the findings given by the authorities below are based on an Excel sheet found during the search operation of the Omaxe Group. In fact, even in the Excel sheet, the figure

written is only Rs. 8000. The Assessing Officer has multiplied it by 100 and made it Rs. 800000/- as payment in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings given by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are without any concrete evidence against the Assessee. He further argued that it is only the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the figure of Rs. 8000 may be read as Rs. 800000/-and the presumption of the Assessing Officerhave been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any evidence bringing on record. The AR argued that the addition made on presumption should not be sustained. 8. We have considered the findings given by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the AO has made the addition just on the basis of an Excel sheet entry of Rs. 8000/- by multiplying it with 100 without bringing on record any concrete evidence for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the presumption of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the addition. We find that there is no document available with the Assessing Officer for prompting him to multiply the figure of Rs.8000/- by 100 making it Rs. 800000/-. It is just a presumption or suspicion. 9. We are of this considered view that in any matter whatsoever a strong, a suspicion made without bringingon record any concrete evidence, no addition can be made / sustained. Therefore, we are not inclined to sustain the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Assessee’s appeal on this issue is accordingly allowed.

Similar view has subsequently been expressed in the case of M/s Amarjot Singh Sohi-HUF (ITA No.1065/CHANDI/2025 dated 07-01- 2026) as under:- 3. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has, all along, denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. Thewhole case of Ld. AO stem from search action on the seller group coupled with statement of officers recorded therein. Apparently, one excel sheet has been found which allegedly contain details of cash payment on sale transaction. In the excel sheet, the assessee is shown to have made payment of Rs.8 Lacs on the impugned transaction. However, the assessee has denied the same and contended that all the payments were made pursuant to written agreement and the payments were through banking channels only. The details of such payment have duly been furnished to Ld. AO. No opportunity of cross-examination has ever been provided to the assessee which is in violation of principle of natural justice. In my considered opinion, the onus was on Ld. AO to prove with cogent evidence that cash was exchanged in the transaction. The assessee has furnished all the documentary evidences as available with him to support the contention that all the payments were made through banking channels only. The confirmation of payment has duly been furnished by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. which is kept on Page No.30 of the paper book. The payments are duly supported by bank statements and the same are reflecting in Form No.26AS of theassessee. The assessee has filed affidavit to the effect that no cash has even been paid to M/s Omaxe Ltd. The assessee could not be asked to prove the negative. In my opinion, the assessee has duly discharged its onus whereas the allegations of Ld. AO remain unsubstantiated. It is trite law that no addition could be made on mere presumptions and assumptions. Considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, the impugned addition is not sustainable. I order so. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee.

I find that similar facts exist in the present appeal before me. The assessee has denied making any cash payment to the Omaxe group. The allegation of Ld. AO is not backed by evidence of cash exchange between the parties. No opportunity of cross-examination has ever been provided to the assessee. In my considered opinion, the onus was on revenue to prove its allegation and this onus has not been discharged. Therefore, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. I order so. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026

-Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 03-08-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH