ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI vs. SACHIN GAUR, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7244/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2026AY 2022-236 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assessed the sale transaction of immovable property as unexplained money. The balance amount was paid by the new buyers directly to the developer, and the assessee did not benefit from it.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income, but the AO made an addition of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- treating it as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee had booked a property, received an offer of possession, and later sold their rights to new buyers who paid the balance amount directly to the developer.

What were the issues?

Whether the sale consideration received by the assessee for the transfer of rights in an immovable property, where the balance payment was made directly by the ultimate buyer to the developer, can be treated as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv & Sh. Ayush Garg, CA
Hearing: 17/03/2026Pronounced: 24/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 7244/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs Sachin Gaur Income Tax, Circle-70(1), Room A-1/7, Vasant Vihar, No. 1802, E-2, Block Civic New Delhi Centre, New Delhi PAN: AANPG5142N

Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv & Sh. Ayush Garg, CA Revenue by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement 24/04/2026

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre

(‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 13/09/2025 for the

Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income

declaring total income at Rs. 1,82,62,190/- which was selected for

scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘Low Long Term Capital Gain and

High Improvement Cost and Large Investment in property as compared

to total income. Assessment order came to be passed on 24/03/2024 by

2 ITA No. 7244/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Sachin Gaur

making an addition of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- by treating the same as

unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'

for short). As against the assessment order dated 24/03/2024, Assessee

preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order

dated 13/09/2025,allowed the Appeal of the Assessee.

3.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that

the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- made

by the A.O. under Section 69A of the Act by ignoring the fact that the

said amount was considered as sale consideration of immovable

property, however, in actual, the Assessee received only Rs.

1,99,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 16,64,37,342/- was

directly paid to the developers by the buyers, while doing so ignored the

fact that alleged possession of the property has been given for meager

amount of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- i.e. 10.67 percentage of the cost in the year

2015 itself. Thus, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous

and is liable to be set aside.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative relying on the order of

the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Assessee has booked the immovable

property in the Farm of Sport Villa,17, Jay Pee Greens, Greater Noida

and also allotment letter dated 30/03/2012 has been issued in the name

3 ITA No. 7244/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Sachin Gaur

of the Assessee. The Assessee has also got the offer of possession on

15/02/2015 by developer,wherein the total value of the property was

enhanced to Rs. 18,65,37,342/- with outstanding balance of Rs.

16,64,37,342/-. Subsequently, the Assessee sold said rights on the

property to the new buyers namely Mr. Yatharth Attrey and Smt. Neena

Tyagi vide an agreement dated 07/10/2021 and the balance payment

has been made by the buyers to the developer directly. Further

submitted that the said property has been transferred in the name of

new buyers by the developers and the Assessee rightly claimed the Long-

TermCapital Gain of Rs. 1,43,84,239/-. Further submitted that the

buyers as well as the developers have also endorsed the said transaction

of the Assessee with credible evidences and documents. The Ld. CIT(A)

after appreciating the entire facts, deleted the addition, which requires

no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, sought for dismissal

of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available

on record. The Assessee has been issued with allotment letter dated

30/03/2012 wherein the Assessee has made payment of Rs.

1,99,00,000/- to the developer in respect of property in the form of

SportVilla-17, Jaypee Corners, Greater Noida. Subsequently, offer of

possessionvide letter dated 15/02/2015 has been issued by the

4 ITA No. 7244/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Sachin Gaur

developer to the Assessee, wherein the total value of the property was

enhanced to Rs. 18,63,37,342/- with outstanding balance of Rs.

16,64,37,342/-. The said right of the Assessee has been purchased by

Mr. Yatharth Attrey and Smt. Neena Tyagi vide an agreement dated

07/10/2021. Ultimately the said property has been purchased by buyers

namely Mr. Yatharth Attrey and Smt. Neena Tyagi by making remaining

balance sale consideration of Rs. 16,64,37,342/- to the developer directly

and the property has been directly transferred in the name of those two

buyers by the developers. The Assessee has produced cogent

documentary evidence in order to establish the said transaction fact.

However, the A.O. held that the total sale consideration as per the

agreement to sale of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- was unexplained money under

Section 69A of the Act and taxed in the hands of the Assessee. It is

observed that while making the said addition A.O. failed to establish that

the Assessee has been benefitted to the tune of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- in the

said transaction. On the contrary, it has been clearly established that,

out of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- an amount of Rs. 16,64,37,342/. - was directly

paid to developers by the new buyers. Hence it cannot be said that

appellant has benefitted directly or in directly by the said amount of Rs.

16,64,37,342/-. Further A.O. has also made enquiries under Section

133(6) of the Act with the developer as well as new buyers, wherein both

5 ITA No. 7244/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Sachin Gaur

the developer as well as new buyers have endorsed the transaction of the

Assessee with supporting evidences. In view of the same and in the

absence of any contrary evidence or facts brought on record by the

Revenue, we find no error or infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that

the A.O. has wrongly assessed the genuine sale transaction of immovable

property as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act in the

hands of the Assessee. Accordingly, finding no merit in the Grounds of

Appeal of the Revenue the Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue are

dismissed.

6.

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 24 .04.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

6 ITA No. 7244/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Sachin Gaur

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →