PIYUSH RAJENDRA AMRITKAR ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

ITA 108/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 September 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 14,74,000 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the letter from the ADIT (Investigation) itself stated that the date of cash payment was not mentioned in the documents. Crucially, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) referred to any specific impounded document that evidenced the alleged cash payment. The AO had not confronted the assessee with any such document. The addition appeared to be based merely on the ADIT's letter and was made on conjectures, not on any concrete evidence. The Tribunal relied on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. VARGHESE vs ITO (1981 AIR 1922) that the onus of establishing the conditions of taxability is always on the Revenue. Since the assessee had denied the cash payment, the onus was on the AO to prove it, which he failed to do. The Tribunal also referred to the ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in Heeena Dashrath Jhanglani vs ITO, ITA 1665/Mum/2018, where similar additions were deleted in the absence of corroborative evidence. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 14,74,000 was directed to be deleted. Grounds 3 and 4 were allowed. Other grounds became academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a salaried individual, filed an original return for AY 2017-18 declaring an income of Rs. 1,95,000. Proceedings under section 147/148 were initiated based on information from a survey action on "Mahajan Group" (operating through M/s Swadik Trade Pvt. Ltd. - STPL). It was alleged the assessee made a cash payment of Rs. 14,74,000 to STPL over and above the recorded consideration for purchasing Flat No. 806. The assessee denied this, stating the entire consideration was paid through banking channels and provided an affidavit and payment trail. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 14,74,000 under section 69 read with section 115BBE, assessing total income at Rs. 16,69,000. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were also initiated. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT. Ground No. 2 regarding jurisdiction was not pressed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 14,74,000 on account of alleged cash payment for the purchase of a flat is sustainable in the absence of any documentary evidence from the Revenue, turning on Section 69 and Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: - There was no cash payment or unexplained investment in FY 2016-17/AY 2017-18. The only transaction was a fully banked booking payment. - The alleged cash payment of Rs. 14,74,000 pertains to a later transaction culminating in an agreement dated 16.11.2018 (FY 2018-19/AY 2019-20), not FY 2016-17. - The booking payment of Rs. 15,00,000 made by cheque was recorded by STPL and corroborated by their deduction of Service Tax. - The assessee's sworn affidavit denying cash payment remains unrebutted and should be accepted, citing Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC). Revenue's contentions: - The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 250,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 on 26.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 13.05.2023. Submission of Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee :

2.

The Ld. AR filed written submissions. The relevant paragraphs of the same are as under : “A. BRIEF FACTS

1.

The Appellant is a salaried individual. He filed his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2017-18 on 01.06.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,95,000/-.

2

2.

Proceedings under section 14

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →