INCOME TAX OFFICER, NOIDA vs. GAGNISH ARORA, NOIDA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 1048/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Income Tax Officer, Gagnish Arora, Room No.- 307, 3rd Floor, A-2D, Duplex 142, Rajat Vihar, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-24, Vs Sector-62, Noida. Noida-201307. PAN- ADFPA5488C Revenue Assessee Assessee by Sh. Kavit Vijay, CA Revenue by Sh. Gouranga Chandra Das, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 04.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 12.12.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2014-15.

ITA No.-1048/Del/2025 Gagnish Arora 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are reproduced as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.2,71,27,420/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investments u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts that the matter under reference had been investigated in depth by the AO during the assessment proceedings. 2. That the order of CIT(Appeals) being erroneous in law and on facts deserves to be set aside/cancelled and the order of the AO to be restored. 3. That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other and appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may arise..”

ITA No.-1048/Del/2025 Gagnish Arora AO completed the assessment by making an addition of ₹2,71,27,420 under Section 69 of the Act, treating the entire amount as unexplained investment.

3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings, that he was just an employee of an Alchemist group company i.e. Alchemist Infra Realty Limited. All the transactions mentioned by the AO were not made on his own account but as a representative of the company on its behalf. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO with the following observations:

“6.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order. A notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee. The return of income was filed dated 28.08.2021 in response of the said notice. As per the reason recorded by the A.O for reopening the case it was found that a search was conducted by the investigation wing, Chandigharh in Alchemist Group of cases. During the search it was found that land was purchased in Jaipur and Tonk District of Rajasthan and other places by M/s Alchemist group. A folder named “data from Gagnish” revealed that cash payments were made for purchase of land by Sh. Gagnish Arora to Shri Anand Khanna and Vikramaditya including payments of Rs. 1,36,38,800/- made on 03.07.2013 and total cash payments of Rs. 2,71,27,420/-. The said payments were made for purchase of land in Jaipur region. The A.O had reasons to believe that the income of Rs. 2,71,27,420/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, in view of the above, the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B on 30.03.2022 assessing the total income at Rs. 2,86,45,720/-. 6.2 The assessee was a salaried employee at Alchemist Infra in the F.Y 2013-14 and derived income from salary, capital gain, loss and interest and the assessee did not purchase any property as alleged by the Assessing Officer and the assessee did not pay any cash amount to Shri Anand Khanna and Vikramaditya. The assessee pointed out during the assessment proceedings that the name mentioned in notice of Sh. Anand Khanna was wrong and as the name of the broker was not Anand Khanna but it was Sh.

ITA No.-1048/Del/2025 Gagnish Arora Anil Khanna who was the broker appointed by Alchemist Infra and Sh. Vikramaditya Singh was himself a director in Alchemist Group. 6.3 The above discussion reflects that the assessee did not purchase any land as alleged by the A.O through cash payment to Mr. Anil Khanna (wrongly named as Sh. Anand Khanna) who was the broker appointed by Alchemist Infra. The Assessing Officer made the assessment order by only relying on the information provided by the investigation wing. 6.4 During the assessment proceedings the relevant documents were also not provided to the assessee for him to prepare a proper rebuttal. In the V.C also the assessee categorically denied of having any such property purchased by him as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in the assessment order the A.O did not mention the details of the property which was purchased by the assessee in lieu of Rs. 2,71,27,420/-. Another issue that needs to be mentioned is that the A.O only mentioned one cash payment of Rs. 1,36,38,800/- on 03.07.2013 which is related to financial year 2013-14 but he did not provide any information regarding the rest 1,34,88,620/- which would confirm the said payment falls within the relevant assessment year i.e 2013-14. 6.5 I agree with the contention of the assessee that the A.O could not provide any concrete evidence and bring any details of the property purchase and cash payments. Since the ownership of the alleged property is in dispute and not supported by any valid evidence, there would be no question about source of investment in alleged purchase property. So that the addition could not be made u/s 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The onus lies on the A.O to provide the relevant evidences on which the additions would be made but in this case the A.O did not discharge its onus. Since, the assessee categorically denied of having purchase of any such property, the onus shifted to the A.O by providing the relevant evidences to the assessee for confrontation. Hence the addition of Rs. 2,71,27,420/- u/s 69 of the Act is deleted.”

3.2 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

ITA No.-1048/Del/2025 Gagnish Arora Arora as Vice President of the company. Copies of the sale deeds relating to the impugned land have also been placed on record. From these documents, it is evident that the transactions for the purchase of land were undertaken by M/s Alchemist Infra Realty Limited and that the same were executed by the assessee in his capacity as an authorized representative of the company.

7.1 Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the contention of the assessee that the cash transactions in question were carried out on behalf of his employer company, therefore, addition if any on this account ought to have been considered in the hands of the company. Accordingly, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO, by passing a well-reasoned and speaking order, which does not call for any interference on our part.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22 .06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated- 22.06.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 5

ITA No.-1048/Del/2025 Gagnish Arora 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,