RAJ SINGH RATHEE,USA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(1)DEL, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 31/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned addition of Rs.90,96,000/- was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that both the lower authorities had relied more on assumptions and presumptions rather than discussing any incriminating material that directly indicated the assessee had made the alleged 'on-money' payments to the developer. The assessment order and the lower appellate discussion lacked any actual evidence to substantiate the allegation of 'on-money' payment against the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the addition made for the financial year 2019-20 and deleted it in its entirety. The ratio decidendi is that additions based on mere assumptions and presumptions, without concrete evidence, are liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Raj Singh Rathee, is appealing against the final assessment order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the DCIT, Circle-Intl. Taxation-3(1)(1), Delhi, under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs.90,96,000/- made by the revenue authorities. The revenue's action was based on incriminating material seized during a search action on 14.03.2022, which allegedly indicated the assessee paid 'on-money' to a developer, M/s. Omaxe group, for property purchase. The assessee contested this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.90,96,000/- on account of alleged 'on-money' payment to M/s. Omaxe group for property purchase is sustainable in law, considering the assessment year 2020-21 and proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee, but it notes that the assessee contested the impugned addition. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the addition was justified as incriminating material was found and seized during a search action on 14.03.2022, indicating the assessee paid Rs.90,96,000/- as 'on-money' to the developer, M/s. Omaxe group, for property purchase. The departmental authorities supported the lower authorities' assessments and findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.31/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Raj Singh Rathee, Vs. DCIT, 8744 N INVERGORDON AD Circle- Intl. Taxation-3(1)(1), 85253 PARADISE VLY AZ U, Delhi USA PAN: AUGPR8656K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ashok Goyal, CA Department by Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 27.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21 is directed against the Assessing Officer’s final assessment order dated 30.12.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/AST/S/147/2025-26/1084238010(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

IT(IT)A No.31/Del/2026

2.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessments and lower appellate findings that the assessee herein has rightly been assessed for having paid on-money of Rs.90,96,000/- to the developer M/s. Omaxe group for purchase of property, as per departmental authorities’ action having found/seized the corresponding incriminating material in search action on 14.03.2022. 3. We have given our 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 respective assumptions and presumptions than having discussed any incriminating material indicating the assessee to have made the impugned on-money payments 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. We thus find no

2 | P a g e

IT(IT)A No.31/Del/2026

merit in the impugned addition of Rs.90,96,000/- in FY 2019-20 which is hereby deleted in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14.08.2026 RK/- 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

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →