FAHIM AHMED ABBASI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4918/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2018-195 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 seized material did not mention the assessee's name, thus it could not be considered incriminating material against him. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

During a search in the case of Sanjay Jain, documents pertaining to the assessee were found, leading to proceedings under section 153C. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 15,37,500/- as unexplained investment on account of alleged on-money payment for a land transaction.

What were the issues?

Whether the seized documents were incriminating material against the assessee to justify the addition under section 153C and 69C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 09.04.2026Pronounced: 09.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4918/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Vs. DCIT, Fahim Ahmed Abbasi D-12, Batla House, Jamia Central Circle 25 Nagar, Jhandewalan New Delhi- 110025 New Delhi- 05 PAN: AFIPA7437C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Vikas Singh, CA Department by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of hearing 09.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.04.2026

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order, 04.03.2024 passed in DIN & case nos. 12568/2017- 18, dated 10.07.2025, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No. 4918/DEL/2025

2.

We notice at the outset that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ assessment order dated 30.03.2023 as well as the CIT(A) lower appellate findings adding the alleged unexplained investment on account of Rs. 15,37,500/- representing the alleged on-money payment made to the vendor concerned. The CIT(A) detailed lower appellate discussion upholding assessment actions to this effect; reads as under: “ 6. Ground Nos. 1 to 4: The brief facts of this case are that appellant filed his ITR for the year under reference on 21.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,77,400/-. A search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 06.02.2019 in the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain related to Kochar Group. During the course of said proceedings, incriminating documents pertaining to appellant were found and accordingly, proceeding u/s 153C of the Act was initiated in the case of appellant. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. The assessment in the case was completed on 30.03.2023 at an assessed income of Rs. 22,14,900/- after making an addition of Re 15,37,500/-u/s 69C of the Act. 6.1 Under these grounds of appeal, the appellant challenged the addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act. The appellant submitted that the incriminating document found during the search operation Le. copy of agreement to sell and purchase cum advance receipt dated 05.10.2017 in respect of a piece of land, was not finally executed due to existing policy of land transfer of Govt. of Uttarakhand. The appellant also denied of paying any amount in cash to seller in this transaction.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 4918/DEL/2025

6.2 I have perused the assessment order and submissions of appellant. It is noted that appellant has not brought any credible documentary evidences on record to substantiate its claim in respect of cancellation/non execution of the agreement to purchase done with Sh. Jain. Also, it is noted that amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- paid by him to seller through cheque/banking channels. However, no evidences could be furnished later on by appellant to establish the return of this amount by seller Sh. Rajiv Jain to him, in case of cancellation or non-execution of the deal.

6.3 On the other hand, AO has given detailed findings after analysing the copy of impugned agreement with related paper sheets found during the search operation in which details of payments through banking channel and in cash by appellant were clearly reflected. On the basis of the same, AO identified the share of appellant along with 4 other buyers, purchased an immovable property on an agreed consideration of Rs. 1,34,37,500/- as per the agreement made and as per the registered sale deed in the name of each buyer, amount paid in total by them was Rs. 57,50,000/-, the difference amount of Rs. 76,87,500/- was paid in cash to sellers. The share of appellant in this cash payment was calculated at Rs. 15,37,500/- and in absence of any explanation, this amount was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C by AO. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the addition made by AO on this issue and accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. ”

3.

Both the parties vehemently support their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. We make it clear 3 | P a g e

ITA No. 4918/DEL/2025

that there is no dispute about the learned departmental authorities have carried out the search in question on 06.02.2019 in M/s Sanjay Jain group of cases leading to initiation of section 153C proceedings against the assessee vide notice dated 31.03.2022 finally culminating in assessment order assessing the alleged on-money; passed on 30.03.2023. Meaning thereby date of search in such a third party’s case has to be read as the date on which the assessee’s Assessing Officer receives the corresponding search records; coming to F.Y. 2021-22 in A.Y. 2022-23. And that going by the very analogy, the impugned assessment year A.Y. 2018-19 turns out to be an “unabated” one wherein any addition to be made based on the specific seized material only in light of PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

5.

Learned CIT(DR) vehemently submits in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order herein at pages 8 to 12 has duly extracted the specific seized material itself against the assessee whilst making the impugned addition. A perusal thereof suggests that the assessee’s name does not even find a mention therein so as to treat the same as an incriminating documents in his case which could held as forming basis of as 4 | P a g e

ITA No. 4918/DEL/2025

many addition made herein. We thus conclude in these facts that both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing this alleged on-money payment of Rs. 15,37,500/- is not sustainable in law as well as on facts. The same is hereby deleted therefore.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →