KRISHNA KANT GAUTAM,MORENA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA, MORENA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “SMC”, AGRA BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITANo.140/AGR/2026 (Assessment Year : 2022-23) Krishna Kant Gautam, vs. ITO, Ward 1, 737, Belony Mata Mandir Ke Peeche, Morena. Vivekanand Colony, Ganesh Pura, Morena – 476 001 (Madhya Pradesh). (PAN: AFBPG1055M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of Order : 16.06.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 raising following grounds of appeal :- “Ground No.1-Invalid Assumption of Jurisdiction under Sections 147/148 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Act, which are bad in law and without

2 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

jurisdiction, as the statutory conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under the Act were not duly satisfied. Ground No.2 - Non-Compliance of Mandatory Procedural Requirements That on the facts and in law, the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio as the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under the Act, prior to issuance of notice under section 148, including compliance with section 148A wherever applicable, was not duly followed, thereby vitiating the entire reassessment. Ground No.3 - Non-Compliance with Mandatory Approval under Section 148B That on the facts and in law, the reassessment order dated 30.03.2025 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction as the mandatory prior approval required under section 148B of the Act, was not obtained before passing the reassessment order. Ground No.4 - Against the principals of Natural Justice That the learned CIT(A)/NFAC, while upholding the validity of re-assessment order, erred in failing to appreciate that neither any material relied upon nor an opportunity of cross examination was provided to the appellant which made the assessment illegal as being against the principals of Natural Justice. Ground No.5 - Addition on Merits (Without Prejudice) That without prejudice to the jurisdictional grounds, the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act., for- a) The addition is based solely on unsubstantiated allegations and presumptions without any independent, corroborative evidence, b) The appellant has categorically denied payment of any such cash, and no documentary or third-party evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to rebut this denial. It is a settled principle that the burden lies on the Revenue to prove the existence of unexplained money; mere suspicion or conjecture cannot substitute proof. c) The impugned addition is contrary to judicial precedents which hold that additions under section 69A must be supported by cogent material and cannot rest on surmises, d) In absence of seized documents, statements, or corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged cash, the addition is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be deleted.”

3 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

4 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

purchasing immovable property. Based on the above observation, reasons were recorded u/s 148 (2)(iv) of the Act and after getting prior approval from the competent authorities, notice u/s 148 for AY 2022-23 was issued to the assessee. In response, assessee filed income-tax return declaring total income of Rs.11,93,810/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee and assessee was asked to explain the source of cash payment amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- paid to Omaxe Group. In response, assessee denied cash payment to Omaxe Group. After considering the same, the Assessing Officer relied on various decisions and came to the conclusion that cross examination is not absolutely right and not only on the circumstances of the case but also on the statute concerned. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition u/s 69A of the Act by heavily relying on the detailed findings in the case of Omaxe Group and statement of President of the company as well as employees and customers. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 8. After considering the detailed submissions and material placed on record, we

5 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

observed that the issue under consideration is exactly similar to the facts in the case of Nitin Arora (supra). The relevant findings of the same are as under :- “2. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the AO on account of the allegation that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Omaxe Group for purchase of property during the AY 2020-21 despite the fact that no such payment was made by the assessee and there is no evidence, whatsoever, in respect of said payment having been made in the AY 2020-21. The assessee has made detailed argument and submitted evidences and explanation in support of its contention that no such payment has been made. However, AO has brushed aside the contention which has also been confirmed by the CIT(A) ignoring the facts of the case. 3. The AO has solely relied on the excel sheet recovered by the investigation Wing from Omaxe Group. No further efforts have been made by the AO to make any further verification or investigation. The AO himself has admitted in the Assessment Order that even the Investigation Wing has made a texture of entries in excel sheet and based on that by indulging into surmises it has been assumed that assessee would have made payment in cash. This is only an assumption. 4. It is noted that even as per excel sheet provided by the AD it has been clearly mentioned that Omaxe Group has received a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-on 17.07.2015. This amount was reversed on 31.01.2017 by passing a journal entry and again brought back by way of journal entry on 30.01.2020. Accordingly, there is no payment mentioned of having cash being paid on 30.01.2020 and hence, no addition is sustainable for the AY 2020-21. From the above, it is clear that AG is only making a guess work. 5. During the course of search proceedings on Omaxe Group (third party) on 14.03.2022, alleged excel sheet was found, wherein it was mentioned that assessee has made cash payment to Omaxe group for the property purchased. Further, AO has vaguely relied upon such excel sheet forwarded to him by Investigation wing, without carrying out any further investigation or bringing on record any further evidence, completely on borrowed satisfaction. Moreover, the statement of key individual of Omaxe Group. The statement were used to bring out a case against the assessee by the AO, who are in no way related to the assessee or its business. Moreover, the aforesaid statements have been collected at the back of the assessee without giving the assessee an opportunity to examine the same.

6 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

7 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

written is only Rs. 20,000. The AO has multiplied it by 100 and made Rs. 20,00,000/- as payment in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings given by the AD. It is only the presumption of the AO that the figure of Rs. 20,000 may be read as Rs. 20,00,000/- and the presumption of the AO have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any evidence bringing on record. The addition made on presumption cannot be sustained. The AO has made the addition just on the basis of an Excel sheet entry of Rs. 20,000/- by multiplying it with 100 without bringing on record any concrete evidence for the same. The CIT(A) has also accepted the presumption of the AO and confirmed the addition. There is no document available with the AO for prompting him to multiply the figure of Rs. 20,000/-by 100 making it Rs. 20,00,000/-, It is just a presumption or suspicion. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case "ANUPAMA GUPTA vs. ITO, Ward Chandigarh, ITA 972/CHD/2025, DATED 08.12.2025 (supra). 10. I find considerable merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. On identical facts in the case of Amarjot Singh Sohi Vs. ITO (supra) Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has considered the similar transactions where the AO alleged that the assessee has paid Rs. 8 lacs to M/s. Omaxe Ltd. in lieu of purchase of property and the Tribunal held as under :- 2. It emerges that pursuant to receipt of certain information that the assessee paid cash of Rs.8 Lacs to M/s Omaxe Ltd. in lieu of purchase of shop besides making payment through banking channels, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 15-03-2024, The said information stem from search action by the department on Omaxe group and statement recorded from officers of that concern us 132(4) of the Act. It transpired that the assessee purchased a shop from Omaxe group in its project situated at Mullanpur. In reply to show-cause notices of Ld. AO, the assessee contended that all the payments were made through banking channels and denied having made any cash payment in the said transaction. The details of payments as made by the assessee were also furnished to Ld. AO. However, considering the statement of officers of M/s Omaxe Ltd u/s 132(4) regarding data pertaining to cash payment gathered from the electronic device wherein the details of assessee making cash payment was mentioned, the assessee's submissions were rejected by Ld. AO. As per electronic data, the assessee allegedly made payment of Rs. 8 Lacs. In the electronic data, the amounts mentioned in the excel sheet was suppressed by factor of "100", Considering the factual matrix, Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 8 Lacs u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and framed the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has, all along, denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. The whole case of Ld. AO stem from search action on the seller group coupled with

8 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

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 the assessee. 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 and circumstances 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. 4. The appeal stand allowed. 11. Similarly the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anupama Gupta Vs. ITO (supra) held as under :- 7. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the findings given by the authorities below are based on an Excel sheet found during the search operation of the Omaxo Group. In fact, even in the Excel sheet, the figure written is only Rs. 8000. The Assessing Officer has multiplied it by 100 and made it Rs. 800000/- as payment in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings given by the Assessing Officer. The Id. AR argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are without any concrete evidence against the Assessee. He further argued that it is only the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the figure of Rs. 8000 may be read as Rs. 800000/-and the presumption of the Assessing Officer have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any evidence bringing on record. The AR argued that the addition made on presumption should not be sustained.

9 ITA No.140/AGR/2026

Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 16.06.2026 TS

10 ITA No.140/AGR/2026