MANOJ KUMAR NAGPAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 3(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1773/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Manoj Kumar Nagpal ITO Ward 3(1) बनाम/ Shop No.14 C/o Shakti Vegetable Traders Ludhiana Vs. Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana 141008 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACYPK-6276-G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual)

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-04-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11-05-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 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 14-11-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 22-01-2024. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.3,96,900/- as unexplained

investment u/s 69. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The assessee’s case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from DDIT / ADIT (Inv.) - 2, Chandigarh that during search and seizure action on Omaxe Group on 14-03-2022, the evidences 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.3,96,900/- 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.3,96,900/- to that group on purchase of immovable property. Accordingly, the assessee was show caused. The assessee refuted the allegation of Ld. AO and sought cross- examination of the persons making statement against the assessee. However, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee and added the amount of Rs.3,96,900/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We find that identical issue has been decided by SMC Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of M/s Amarjot Singh Sohi-HUF (ITA No.1065/CHANDI/2025) as under:- 3. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has, all along, denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. The whole 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 the assessee. 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 and circumstances 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. We find that similar facts exist in the present appeal. 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. The onus was on revenue to prove the allegation and this onus has not been discharged. Therefore, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. We order so. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 11th May, 2026.

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AS Dated:11-05-2026 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