AJAY MUNJAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), DELHI

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated

27.10.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for

short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082012448(1)

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 8585/Del/2025 Mr. Ajay Munjal (AY: 2019-20) arising out of the assessment order dated 06.01.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by

Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2019 -20.

Group on 14.03.2022 allegedly some digital evidences in the form of excel

sheet was found and based upon the same and the statement recorded of the

employees of Omaxe Group department came to a conclusion that certain

unaccounted transaction were taken by Omaxe Group in the form of “On

money” receipts on sale of commercial and residential units in various

projects and accordingly alleging cash payment of Rs.14,20,800/- on

purchase of a property an addition was made in the hands of assessee and the

same have been sustained for which assessee is in appeal .

any corroborative evidences the statement have been relied and it was also

submitted that assessee was given any opportunity for cross-examination.

3.1 Ld. DR has though relied the impugned orders and submitted that

electronic evidence in the form of excel sheet and the agreement for sale have

been relied by assessing officer.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 8585/Del/2025 Mr. Ajay Munjal (AY: 2019-20) 4. We find that excel file record relied by assessing officer has triggered

for which it is recorded that a factor of 100 was applied to arrive to the figure

of Rs.14,20,800/-. Then there is a copy of agreement for sale reproduced in

the assessment order the same has no details of the alleged transaction. This

agreement is shown to be dated 27.02.2019 while the corresponding excel

data mentions of certain transactions of 16.01.2019 and 25.01.2025. The

assessing officer mentions of the fact of recording statement of one Manish

Kumar on 17.03.2022 u/s 132(4) of the Act, however, there is no such

statement as part of the assessment order otherwise on record which would

show that in regard to property transaction taken by the assessee there was

any specific question and answer in the form of admission of payment of on

money. The statements seems to be only with regard to extraction of data and

how the data was maintained. Then the assessee’s explanation to the

transaction shows that assessee vide letter dated 30.11.2024 had explained to

the assessing officer that his wife along with mother had applied in

Octorber/November, 2010 in Omaxe Group and had payments were made

October/November, 2010 by his mother and wife from their account.

Allotment letter was issued on 01.12.2010 allotting 362.53 sq. ft. in Omaxe

Connaught place bearing No. 167. His mother died in 2015 and half share

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 8585/Del/2025 Mr. Ajay Munjal (AY: 2019-20)

allotted to her was mutated in favour of assessee. Since, Omaxe failed to

giving possession for last 8 years pressure was put upon the builder and they

offered to give unit in another project for which an application was submitted

on 10.10.2018 and assessee claimed that no new property was purchased

from Omaxe Group in 2018/2019. However, it appears that based on

extraction of some data alone and the assessment proceedings in the case of

Omaxe India Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. conclusion were drawn by the assessing

officer and ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the aforesaid and on merely

relying investigation wing report had sustained the order of ld. Assessing

officer which cannot be sustained. In similar circumstances Coordinate

Bench has held that such electronic evidence and statement of witnesses

without opportunity of cross examination cannot be made basis for addition

we reproduce the relevant part in the case of Saima Sarwat Malik Vs. ITO,

Ward 28(1) dated 16.03.2026:

“6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of assessment order reveals that purportedly husband of the assessee had purchased a shop from Omaxe Group during the year 2010-11 in Omaxe Connaught Place Beta II, Greater Noida, UP. The same was assigned to the assessee by her husband in the year 2010-11 itself. During FY 2019-20, the said property was exchanged with the Unit No. OCPK/First/78 Omaxe Connaught Beta II, Greater Noida. In this regard confirmation dated 27.09.2024 was filed from Omaxe Ltd. giving the details of the unit number and the details of payments received and the adjustment of payment from earlier unit. The assessee denied having made cash payment of Rs.15,33,900/- to Omaxe Group.

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 8585/Del/2025 Mr. Ajay Munjal (AY: 2019-20) 7. I find that the addition has been made by the AO, merely, on the basis of documents/information retrieved from hard disk seized from Omaxe Group during the course of search. The assessee was never provided with the documents on which the addition is based. The Counsel for the assessee has drawn attention of the Bench to the grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A), wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the AO has not provided of the seized/impounded material pertaining to the assessee. I find merit in the submissions of the assessee, it is no more res-integra that addition based on material collected behind the back of assessee, without providing the assessee for rebuttal or cross examination is unsustainable and invalid in law. Such addition is in direct violation of principles of natural justice viz. the audi alteram partem rule. [Re: Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 281 CTR 241/62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)].” 3. As a consequence of aforesaid discussion the ground on merits are

sustained. The appeal of assessee is allowed and the impugned addition is

deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 20.05.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI