AMIT KUMAR MITTAL HUF,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied more on assumptions and presumptions than on actual incriminating material. There was no concrete evidence presented to support the allegation of on-money payment by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 was against an addition made under section 147. The addition was based on the departmental authorities' belief that the assessee paid on-money to a developer, supported by incriminating material found during a search.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under section 147 was based on sufficient incriminating material or mere assumptions and presumptions.
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.5212/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Amit Kumar Mittal HUF, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18, Ganj Bazaar, Meerut Meerut Cantt, Meerut PAN: AAGHA0953G (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Satyendra Mittal, Adv. Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, 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/250/2025-26/1086954697(1), dated 06.03.2026 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.5212/Del/2026
assessment and lower appellate findings that the assessee/appellant herein has rightly been assessed for having paid on-money of Rs.16,34,489/- to the developer M/s. Omaxe group as per departmental authorities’ action having found/seized the corresponding incriminating material in search action on 14.03.2022. 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.16,34,489/- which is hereby deleted in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.5212/Del/2026
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th July, 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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026