ATUL SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT-CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

ITA 617/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 September 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee. It found that the revenue did not dispute that Rs. 37,50,000/- was the amount in the registered sale deed and was paid by cheque. The assessee had also categorically denied making any additional cash payment. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) relied on the possibility of unaccounted cash payments and the seized digital evidence, despite the assessee providing a confirmation letter from the builder stating only the registered sale consideration was paid by cheque. Crucially, the Tribunal held that the assessee was neither provided with the material seized during the search nor given an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were the basis for the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 17,62,500/-. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of reassessment was not explicitly decided as the primary ground led to the deletion of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atul Sharma, is appealing an order from the CIT(A) dated 02.01.2026, which upheld an addition of Rs. 17,62,500/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was made during reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The AO's addition stemmed from a search and seizure action on 20.03.2023 in the case of Paras Jain Group, where incriminating documents indicated the assessee paid 'on money' in cash for a flat purchased in Orchid Tower-A. The registered sale deed showed Rs. 37,50,000/-, while the total consideration was Rs. 55,12,500/-, with the difference of Rs. 17,62,500/- allegedly paid in cash. The assessee denied this cash payment and provided a confirmation letter from the builder.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 17,62,500/- as unexplained cash investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE is sustainable, given that no actual investment by the assessee has been established? Assessee's Contention: The addition is based on seized material from a third party and statements recorded under Section 132(4) without providing the material to the assessee or allowing cross-examination. The assessee denies any cash payment and has provided a builder's confirmation. The addition is based on conjecture and not specific evidence. The assessee also argues that the electronic records' evidentiary foundation was not established and that the reassessment is without jurisdiction due to procedural irregularities concerning the e-Assessment Scheme. Revenue's Contention: The search and seizure report indicates that the assessee purchased Flat No. 408 in Orchid Tower-A for a total consideration of Rs. 55,12,500/-, with Rs. 37,50,000/- registered and the remaining Rs. 17,62,500/- paid in cash to the builder. This cash payment has been rightly confirmed by the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 147,Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 151,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 292C,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 28.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10491123 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. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 17,62,500/- as unexplained cash investment added u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, made vide assessment order dated 31.03.2025 passed u/s 147 of the Act.

2.

At the very outset, we notice that, according to registry’s report, the assessee filed this second appeal on 10.08.2026 against the impugned order dated 02.01.

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →