ASHVEEN MALIK,JHAJJAR vs. ITO WARD -3, ROHTAK
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on mere assumptions rather than specific incriminating material to prove the on-money payment. Consequently, the addition made by the Revenue was deleted.
What were the facts?
The Revenue alleged that the assessee paid on-money of Rs. 2,85,100/- to a developer based on search action findings. The lower authorities made this addition based on assumptions and presumptions.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of on-money payment was justified without specific incriminating material, and if the lower authorities relied on assumptions instead of evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1431/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ashveen Malik Vs. ITO Ward-3 964/1 Priya Colony, Aayakr Bhawan Jhajjar-124001 Rohtak- 124001 Haryana Haryana PAN: BNZPM4574L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Navin Kumar Goyal, CA (VC) Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083857997(1), dated 18.12.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
ITA No.1431/Del/2026
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings that the assessee/appellant herein has rightly been assessed for having paid on-money of Rs. 2,85,100/- to the developer M/s. Omax group as per departmental authorities’ search action having found/seized the corresponding incriminating material on 14.03.2022. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the impugned addition. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that both the learned lower authorities have more gone by their mere assumptions and presumptions than having discussed any specific incriminating material indicating the assessee to have made the impugned on-money payment to the searched party in question. It is further emphasized that there is no indication in the assessment order or in the lower appellate discussion discussing any actual evidence against the assessee to buttress the on-money allegation against him. I thus find no merit in the impugned addition of Rs. 2,85,100/- which is hereby deleted in very terms.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.1431/Del/2026
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th April, 2026
Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16th April, 2026. Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026