LAKHBIR SINGH,BULANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BULANDSHAHAR
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 on assumptions and presumptions rather than discussing specific incriminating material against the assessee. There was no actual evidence presented to support the on-money allegations.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals relate to assessment years 2020-21 to 2022-23, involving proceedings under section 147. The additions were made based on the allegation of paying on-money to a developer, supported by seized material during a search.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made based on alleged on-money payments were supported by sufficient incriminating material and evidence against the assessee.
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 Nos.3547 to 3549/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 to 2022-23 Lakhbir Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 84, Moh. Ahirpara Bulandshahr Khurja, Bulandshahr PAN: AWKPS4327A (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Rajeev Kaushal, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 02.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2026 ORDER
These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.3547, 3548 & 3549/Del/2026 for assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022- 23, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 22.01.2026, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085078758(1), 1085084584(1) and 1085084700(1) involving proceedings under
ITA No.3547 to 3549/Del/2026
section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessments and lower appellate findings that the assessee/appellant herein has rightly been assessed for having paid on-money of Rs.21 lakhs in both AYs 2020-21 & 2021-22 and Rs. 5,39,500/- in AY 2022-23 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 payments to the searched party in question. It is further emphasized that there is
2 | P a g e
ITA No.3547 to 3549/Del/2026
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 against her. I thus find no merit in the impugned addition of Rs.21 lakhs in both AYs 2020-21 & 2021-22 and Rs. 5,39,500/- in AY 2022-23, which are hereby deleted in very terms. 4. These assessee’ three appeals ITA No.3547 to 3549/Del/2026 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23rd 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 →- 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
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026