ATUL LADHA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 556/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Atul Ladha, 263, Jiwaji Nagar Vs. ACIT, City Centre, Gwalior- Thatipur, Gwalior- 474011 474011 PAN : AASPL0790Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, C.A. Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr (DR)

Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2022-23/10475444 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC (Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2023-24, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case state that the appellant assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, capital gains and interests. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 30.10.2023,

ITA No.556/Agr/2025 declaring total income of Rs. 4,53,20,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of information emanating from a search action u/s 132 of the Act, conducted on 12.06.2023 in the case of M/s. Isprava Vesta Pvt Ltd, M/s. Isprava Hospitality Pvt Ltd and its key persons. During the post search analysis, documents were seized from the premises of Shri. Soham Kapadia, indicating the receipt of on-money in transactions involving sale of immovable properties. It was found that the property was reflected in the books at Rs. 13,43,90,000/- which was in fact sold for Rs. 13,45,00,000/-, resulting in an unexplained difference of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The searched person Mr. Soham Kapadia admitted this fact in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2025 by making an addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- as unexplained amount u/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 4. Assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds: “1. That the Ld NFAC has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- made by the Ld AO, U/s 69B of the Act, for alleged unexplained investment in purchase of property, solely on the basis of information from DDIT (Inv), Unit-II, Panaji, Goa pursuant to a search conducted on a third party, without conducting any independent enquiry or verification in respect of the appellant's -case. 2. That the Ld NFAC, while confirming the impugned addition grossly failed to appreciate that the appellant had furnished all relevant documentary evidences in the shape of purchase agreements as well as payment details in relation to purchase of property for 13,45,00,000/- and, thus, there was no understatement or unexplained investment by the appellant in purchase of alleged property.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.556/Agr/2025 3. That the Ld. NFAC, while confirming the impugned addition, failed to appreciate that the action of the Ld. AO in making such addition was not only arbitrary and unjust but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. No independent enquiry was conducted, nor was any material placed on record to substantiate the alleged cash payment of ₹1,10,000/-. Further, despite specific requests, the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the party whose statement was relied upon, thereby rendering the addition unsustainable. 4. That in any view of matter and under the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and in law, action of both the lower authorities in making and confirming the impugned addition of ₹1,10,000/- U/s 69B of the Act, is devoid of any merit, incorrect, illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. That the appellant craves your honour's permission to amend, alter, delete or raise an additional ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 5. Perused the records and heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. The main point for determination on the basis of the aforesaid grounds raised under appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A), has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/-, as an unexplained investment, made u/s. 69 of the Act. 7. Ld representative for the assessee has submitted that the said addition is made entirely on the basis of investigation report without verification of the assessee’s documents and without providing opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee in respect of the persons whose statements were relied by the department. Assessee never claimed the investment of Rs. 13,43,90,000/- but always submitted that the property was purchased for Rs. 13,45,00,000/- only. All the payments were made through banking channels only and no cash was ever paid by the assessee. However, assessee’s submissions and documentary evidences

3 | P a g e

ITA No.556/Agr/2025 were overlooked by the revenue authorities. Ld AR, thus, prayed to allow the assessee’s appeal. 8. Ld Sr DR has stated that the on-money payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- in the transaction involving sale of immovable property was admitted by the searched person corroborating the document seized from the premises of searched person. The property reflected in the books of the searched person was at Rs. 13,43,90,000/-, which was in fact sold for Rs. 13,45,00,000/- resulting in an unexplained difference of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Ld DR, thus, supports the impugned order. 9. It transpires from the perusal of records that assessee has purchased Mandrem Villa, being Plot No. A-3, situated at S. No 365/1, Village Mandrem, Taluka- Pernam, Dist- North Goa from Isprava Vesta Pvt Ltd. for the consideration of Rs. 13,45,00,000/- as per following payment schedule:

Particulars Amount Cost of Land As per Land Purchase 2,77,00,000.00 Deed Construction Cost As per Construction 10,54,10,000.00 Agreement Amenities Area 13,90,000.00 Total 13,45,00,000.00

ITA No.556/Agr/2025 is reflected in the agreement for construction of residential house in assessee’s paper book at page 46 to 72 and the letter amenities, with regard to the costing to Rs. 13,90,000/- is in assessee’s paper book at page 73 to 74. Thus, this bifurcation in accordance with the aforesaid tabulation, shows that the property was purchased for Rs. 13,45,00,000/-. Mr. Soham Kapadia (searched person) made an entry in his books only to the extent of Rs. 13,43,90,000/- cannot be the sole basis for the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- in the income of the assessee, more so when the assessee has entered into the whole transaction of Rs. 13,45,00,000/- through banking channels only. The aforesaid point is accordingly determined in positive in favour of the appellant assessee and against the revenue. The assessing officer is directed to delete the said addition of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on – 21.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21.05.2026 Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra 5 | P a g e