MUKESH BHARDWAJ,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The assessee’s case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information 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.22 Lacs 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.22 Lacs 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. The cross-examination was provided through Video Conference but the witness / deponent did not categorically state whether the cash was accepted from the assessee or not. Finally, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee and added the amount of Rs.22 Lacs 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:-

From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has, all along, denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. Thewhole 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 theassessee. 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 andcircumstances 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 contention of the assessee is duly supported by confirmation of M/s Omaxe Group dated 13-03-2026 as placed on record. It has been stated therein that no amount has been received from the assessee in cash. The allegation of Ld. AO is not backed by evidence of cash exchange between the parties. The cross-examination as provided by Ld. AO does not support the allegation of Ld. AO. 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.

The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 12th May, 2026.