HARPREET SINGH SANDHU,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 217/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 August 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on third-party information without any corroborating material from the revenue. The presumption under Section 292C(1) is not applicable here, and the onus was on the revenue to prove the transaction.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 15.37 Lacs to the assessee's income as unexplained investment based on third-party information regarding a property purchase. The assessee denied the transaction and any cash payment.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition can be sustained solely on third-party information without corroborating evidence, and the applicability of Section 292C(1) presumption.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 292C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

For Respondent: DR (Virtual)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.217/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Harpreet Singh Sandhu ITO Ward – 2(1) H. No. 2158, Sector – 35-C Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. S.O. Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh – 160035 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AVNPS-6037-R (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) - Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual)

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) 2012- 13 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [CIT(A)] dated 10.12.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 19.12.2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of unexplained investment for Rs.15.37 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 pursuant to receipt of information from investigation wing that the assessee made payment in cash for Rs.15.37 Lacs for purchase of certain immovable property from M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. The property was stated to be in the shape of residential Plot No.04 E33, 139 Acre-Hasanpur. Sector 123, Sunny Enclave, Kharar. The assessee remained unresponsive. The information of assessee was called from M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. who provided copies of account of the assessee for the years 2012-13 to 2018-20. The assessee’s counsel submitted that the assessee neither purchased the said plot nor made any alleged cash payment to the payee as alleged by Ld. AO. However, Ld. AO tabulated the alleged cash payment at para-5 and rejected the explanation of the assessee by invoking the presumption of Sec.292C(1) against the assessee. Finally, the alleged cash payment of Rs.15.37 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. From the stated facts, it clearly emerges that the impugned addition has been made merely on the basis of third-party information only. This incriminating information of cash payment emanates from records of a third-party. The assessee has denied having any connection with the alleged payee. It has also been stated that the assessee has neither purchased any property nor made any cash payment. The Ld. AO has not referred to any kind of agreement / deed or any other material which would indicate that the assessee has, in

fact, entered into any such transaction with the payee. The presumption of Sec.292C(1) is applicable for the searched person only. The complete onus was on revenue to prove its allegations. Except for reference to noting made by a third-party, over which the assessee do not have any control, there is no material to rebut the claim of the assessee. No fact is on record to indicate that any consideration has flown from the bank account of the assessee towards purchase of the property. On these facts, the impugned addition could not be sustained. I order so. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stand 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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →