SUNITA GUPTA,VILLAGE CHHACHHRAULI DISTRICT YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1741/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 May 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of third-party information without independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. Following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- was made under Section 69 based on third-party information from a search in the Omaxe Group case, alleging unexplained cash investment in a plot.

What were the issues?

Whether additions can be made solely on the basis of third-party information without independent corroboration, and whether reassessment proceedings were validly initiated without complying with mandatory procedures.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250(6),Section 250(4),Section 250(5),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “ए” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी कृणव� सहाय, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1741/Chd/ 2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sunita Gupta बनाम The ITO 2/108, Mohalla Kutirwan Village Ward5, Yamunanagar Chhachhrauli Dist: Yamunangar - 135103, Haryana �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGWPA5385Q अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22/04/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/05/2026 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 04.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee had initially engaged a counsel for handling the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the said counsel neither properly informed the assessee regarding the status of the appeal nor effectively pursued the matter. Thereafter, when the assessee made enquiries on 17.10.2025, she came to know that the appeal had already been

2 dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee contacted another counsel and steps were initiated for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was thus contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons.

4.

The Ld. DR opposed the condonation application and submitted that sufficient cause had not been shown by the assessee for condoning the delay.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in a plausible manner. The delay appears to have occurred due to lack of proper communication by the earlier counsel and the assessee cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the counsel. We further note that the delay is not inordinate and there is no material on record to suggest that the delay was intentional or mala fide. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC), we are of the considered view that sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

6.

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

1.

Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act which are bad in law, void ab initio & without jurisdiction, the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 148A having not been validly complied with. 2. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in dismissing the appeal primarily on the ground of alleged non prosecution, without adjudicating the issues on merits, contrary to the mandate of Section 250(6) r.w.s. 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 requiring CIT(A) not to dismiss appeal in limine for non prosecution however to dispose the appeal on merits pursuant to case of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR 302 (Bom). 3. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in failing to appreciate that notice u/s 148 was issued on dt 31.03.2023 without waiting for expiry of time granted to the appellant to respond to notice u/s

3 148A(b) dt 29.03.2023, thereby vitiating theentire reopening proceedings in gross violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. 4. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in holding that reassessment despite the fact that no incriminating tangible material belonging to the appellant was found during the search conducted on the 3rd Party (Omaxe Group), and the reopening is based solely on unverified 3rd Party information. 5. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in confirming the re-assessment order despite the AO’s failure to provide the appellant with copies of alleged seized material and denial of opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon, rendering the addition unsustainable in law. 6. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs 12,00,000/- u/s 69 as unexplained investment merely on the basis of alleged entries in 3rd party documents, without any corroborative evidence, independent enquiry or proof of actual cash payment by the appellant. 7. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in recording assumed unilateral finding bereft of sustainablereasoning that the appellant's plea of 50% ownership in the property amounted to an "indirect admission" of alleged cash payment which is contrary to settled principles of evidence and burden of proof. 8. Because impugned order is being challenged on facts and law in confirming taxation of the alleged addition u/s 115BBE without independently examining whether the conditions precedent for invoking Section 69 were satisfied, thereby rendering the levy arbitrary and unsustainable. 9. Because the assessee prays for any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assesse.

7.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,56,000/-. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing pursuant to search and seizure action conducted in the case of Omaxe Group, wherein it was alleged that the assessee had made cash payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- over and above the regular banking payments in connection with purchase of a plot. Based on the said information, proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated and notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2023.

8.

During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that though the assessee denied having made any cash payment, no documentary evidence was furnished to substantiate such denial. The

4 assessee submitted that she had only 50% ownership in the property and therefore at best only 50% of the alleged cash component could be attributed to her. The Assessing Officer treated the said contention as an indirect admission of the alleged cash payment and accordingly made addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment and taxed the same under section 115BBE of the Act.

9.

Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite issuance of several notices, no effective compliance was made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to rebut the information received from the Investigation Wing. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee’s plea regarding 50% ownership amounted to indirect admission of cash payment and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly dismissed.

10.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

11.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the entire addition has been made merely on the basis of information received from third party search proceedings conducted in the case of Omaxe Group. It was argued that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was ever found. The Ld. AR further submitted that neither copies of alleged seized documents were provided to the assessee nor any opportunity of cross-examination was granted. It was contended that the addition under section 69 has been made merely on presumptions and surmises without any corroborative evidence establishing actual cash payment by the assessee. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Anupama Gupta in ITA No. 972/Chd/2025 dated 08.12.2025 wherein under similar facts addition made on the basis of excel sheet recovered from Omaxe Group was deleted by the Tribunal.

5 12. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the addition was rightly made on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing.

13.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the addition in the present case has been made solely on the basis of information allegedly received from the Investigation Wing consequent to search action conducted in the case of Omaxe Group. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the Assessing Officer to establish actual payment of cash by the assessee. No corroborative evidence in the nature of receipt, statement, confirmation or any other documentary material establishing actual payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- by the assessee has been brought on record.

13.1 We further find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anupama Gupta vs ITO in ITA No. 972/Chd/2025 under identical facts involving alleged cash payment to Omaxe Group has held that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without bringing any concrete evidence on record. The Coordinate Bench observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence.

13.2 In the present case also, except the information received from third party proceedings, no cogent material has been brought on record to conclusively establish that the assessee had actually made cash payment of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The addition has been sustained merely on presumptions without any independent corroboration. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Anupama Gupta (supra), we are of the considered view that the addition made under section 69 of the Act cannot be sustained.

13.3 Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.

6 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 12/05/2026 Sd/- Sd/- लिलत कुमार कृणव� सहाय (LALIET KUMAR) (KRINWANT SAHAY) लेखासद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File ANUP Digitally signed by ANUPAMA AMA GHERA आदेशानुसार/ By order, Date: सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar 2026.05.13 GHERA 15:59:47 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →