What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the AO to consider additional evidence from the assessee and allow cross-examination of the property dealer.

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on a third-party search, alleging the purchase of immovable property. The assessee claims the property transaction did not materialize and the AO did not confront the relevant receipts before making the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO made an addition without confronting the assessee with evidence, and whether the assessee actually purchased the property in question.

Ramesh Chander, Gurgaon vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2018-19.

Shri Anil Garg, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the short issue in the instant appeal is that the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition in hands of assessee on the basis of search at the premises of third party i.e. Shri Om Prakash Saini. The AO has alleged that the assessee has purchased immovable property admeasuring 150 sq. yard for total consideration of Rs.43,20,000/- during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. The ld. AR stated that the assessee had agreed to purchase plot no. 253, Satguru Enclave, Near opposite Maruti Udyog, Gurugram. The assessee had paid Rs.50,000/- on 05.07.2017 against receipt issued by Lokesh Saini, proprietor

ITA 4424/DEL/2026 RAMESH CHANDER of Om Properties. The said amount was subsequently returned back to the assessee by the seller in cash as the transaction of purchase of property never materialized. He further referred to the confirmation by Shri Lokesh Saini, proprietor of Om Properties through whom the assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of plot no. 253, Satguru Enclave, Near opposite Maruti Udyog, Gurugram. The AO before making addition on the basis of receipts dated 07.09.2017 for Rs.9,50,000/- and receipt no. 420 dated 07.07.2017 for Rs.9,00,000/- and third receipt dated 16.07.2017 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- never confronted these receipts to the assessee. The assessee came to know about those receipts only after passing of the assessment order. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO without appreciating the documents furnished by the assessee. The ld. Counsel submits that after passing of the impugned order, the assessee came into possession of the electricity bill of the property which was purportedly purchased by the assessee. The electricity bill would show that the property stands in the name of one Shri Rohtash and not the assessee. The ld. Counsel submits that he can produce evidences before the AO, if given an opportunity, to show that the property is not owned by the assessee. 3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The limited issue in the present appeal is regarding the transaction of purchase of property i.e. plot no. 253, Satguru Enclave, Near opposite Maruti Udyog, Gurugram. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has not purchased the said immovable property and the said property does not stand in the name of the assessee. The grievance of the assessee is that before making the addition, the AO never confronted the receipts issued by Om Properties on the basis of which addition is made, to the assessee. Considering facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO for denovo assessment after considering the evidence/additional evidence filed by the assessee to prove that the property is not owned by the assessee. The AO shall grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the property dealer i.e. OM Properties who has issued receipts for the payment of Rs.9,50,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/-, respectively.

ITA 4424/DEL/2026 RAMESH CHANDER

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the terms aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 23rd of June, 2026.

Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 25-Jun-2026

NV/-

ITA 4424/DEL/2026 RAMESH CHANDER Copy to: RAMESH CHANDER, C-62-D SANJAY GRAM, NEW MATA ROAD, 1 OPP. SECTOR 14, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA ITO WARD 3(1), 2 GURGAON, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

RAMESH CHANDER,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NWR, GURGAON

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments