MEENA CHIRAG AMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 3/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 March 2026AY 2012-1310 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 addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged 'on money' payment of Rs. 75,19,000/- was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion was based on an excel sheet found during a search on HN Safal Group. However, upon examining the details, the Tribunal found a lack of correlation between the cheque payments as recorded in the excel sheet and the actual cheque payments made by the assessee as per the registered sale deed and the assessee's own ledger. Specifically, the total cheque payment recorded in the excel sheet till 21.01.2012 was Rs. 46,50,000/-, while the sale deed indicated only Rs. 40,00,000/- paid by that date. This discrepancy in cheque payments cast doubt on the reliability of the cash payment figures in the excel sheet. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the admission by HN Safal Group before the Settlement Commission was general and did not categorically mention the assessee's name individually. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on presumptions and not on actual correlation of payments, and there was no direct or indirect evidence to prove that the cash payment shown in the excel sheet was actually paid by the assessee to the developer. The addition was accordingly deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee, Meena Chirag Amin, is challenging an addition of Rs. 75,19,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged "on money" payment for the purchase of Bungalow No. 104. The AO's addition was based on data found in a hard disk seized during a search operation on the "HN Safal Group." The AO noted that HN Safal Group had admitted additional income before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The assessee contended that the data from the third party lacked evidentiary value, contained no signatory details, and that the AO failed to establish any cash trail or provide corroborative evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 75,19,000/- on account of alleged "on money" payment is sustainable in law, when it is based solely on data from a third party's hard disk and lacks corroborative evidence or a proven cash trail, as per Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The addition is based on data from a third party's hard disk which does not contain the assessee's signature or confirmation of receipt of alleged 'on money'. - The AO has not provided any corroborative evidence or made independent inquiries to establish actual payment of 'on money' by the assessee. - The AO has shifted the burden of proof to the assessee to prove non-payment, whereas the allegation of payment is by the AO. - The data in the excel sheet does not match the actual cheque payments made by the assessee as per the registered purchase deed and the assessee's own books of accounts. - Reliance was placed on various Tribunal decisions and the Gujarat High Court decision in PCIT vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 132A,Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 245D(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr A.R. &, Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 10-10- 2023 passed by CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “The Appellant herein has preferred this present Appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the Appellant's Appeal against the order passed by the Ld. AO on following grounds: 1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 75,19,000/- on the alleged ground of "On Money" paid by the appellant. The Ld. AO has added the said sum to the income of

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 the appellant merely on the basis of data from the hard disk found during the search operation carried out on the third party i.e. "HN Safal Group". The Ld. AO has also disclosed the fact that the party on which the search operation was carried out i.e. "HN Safal Group" has admitted the additional income before the Hon'ble ITSC. It is submitted that such disclosure is "general" and the Ld. AO has not provided anything to establish that the alleged amount of addition (regarded as "On money") has actually been paid by the appellant. Thus, it is evident that the Ld. AO has "solely" relied upon the information received during the search operation on the third party and added such sum under the presumption that "On-money might have been paid by the appellant".

2.

The Ld. AO has added such sum of Rs. 75,19,000/- to the income of the appellant without providing any corroborative evidence. The Ld. AO has not made any independent inquiry so establish that the alleged "On-money" is actually paid by the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that that data found from the HN Safal Group neither contain any signatory details nor any confirmatory evidence that "On-money" has been paid by the appellant. The Ld. AO is also unable to prove any cash trail of the alleged "On-money", rather the Ld. AO has shifted the burden on the appellant to prove that any cash has been paid by the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that it is the allegation of the Ld. AO that "On-money" has been paid by the appellant where as the appellant has denied any such cash transaction undertaken by her. Thus, under this circumstances it is for the Ld. AO to prove his allegation by corroborative evidence to establish the cash trail.

3.

Further, it is submitted that the entire addition of the alleged "On-money" is based on the data found from the hard disk seized during the search operation carried out at the premises of the third party. It is pertinent to mention that such data based on which the Ld. AO has made addition in the income of the appellant, was prepared by some third party and not by the appellant, the data did not contain ant signature of the appellant evidencing confirmation of the receipt of the alleged "On-money" and lacks any evidentiary value. The Ld. AO has also not established any Cash trail from the data seized from the third party. Hence, the addition has been made "solely" on the basis of "entries" or "materials" seized from the third party without any corroborative evidence. Thus, the addition of Rs. 75,19,000 required to be deleted.

4.

The Appellant craves to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

RELIEFS CLAIMED: 2

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13

1.

The addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 75,19,000/- should be deleted. 2. Alternatively, the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. AO with directions that an opportunity may be given the Appellant to present the Appellant's case on merits based on the facts and the law.

3.

Such other consequential relief as may be fit and proper in the case of the Appellant.”

3.

The original return of income was filed by the assessee on 14-07-2012. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The search u/s. 132A of the Income Tax Act were conducted at various premises of HN Safal Group of cases on 04- 09-2013. During the course of search Annexure A-08 i.e. hard disc was seized from 7th Floor Safal Profitaire, Prahladnagar Ahmedabad which contained various details of various residential and commercial projects. In the hard disc, the excel sheet namely Safal Amarkunj 28-01-2002.xls which interalia contained Safal Estate in which the soft data of Safal Amarkunj Scheme of M/s. Safal Estate was found which contains name of member/client/customer/final details of outstanding etc. The details in respect of on money received by assessee Meena C. Amin was also found in this sheet which is as under:-

Bunglow No. Members On Money PAN Name Paid 104 Dr. Meena C. 75,19,000/- AAOPA6444J Amin

The Assessing Officer observed that on money of Rs. 75,19,000/- has been paid by the assessee for the purchase of Bunglow No.

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 104. After issuing show cause notice, the assessee filed her reply on 05-09-2018. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee with her husband jointly purchased Bungalow no. 104 at Rs. 80 lacs as mentioned in purchase deed dated 27-05-2013. All the payments made through account payee cheques only [Rs. 35 lacs from assessee’s account and Rs. 45 lacs from assessee’s husband’s account]. The assessee’s husband has also paid various other charges like service tax, maintenance deposit, cost of share certificate fee by account payee cheques only. The assessee denied that there was any agreement to pay amount in cash to the extent of Rs. 75,19,000/- other than Rs. 80 lacs which was already paid through cheques by assessee and her husband. After taking into cognizance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has paid on money in respect of purchase of Bungalow no. 104 as the HN Safal admitted the additional income before Hon’ble Settlement Commission and accordingly Hon’ble Settlement Commission passed the order u/s. 245D(4) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 75,19,000/- as undisclosed income.

The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) 4. dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the noting in the excel sheet do not match with the amount of actual cheque demand made by the assessee as explained through following points: “(i) As per the excel sheet dated 21.01.2012 (last modified on 28.01.2012) as reproduced in the assessment order, the column heading "Rce.Q" represents amount paid through cheque which is Rs. 46,50,000/-.

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 While as per the registered purchase deed (P/B Pgs. 32-66), the amount paid through cheque till such period is Rs. 40,00,000/- as computed hereunder:

Cheque No. Date Amount

360627 08.10.2009 5,00,000 500808 08.10.2009 5,00,000 352474 27.11.2009 15,00,000 344143 23.02.2010 10,00,000 344149 14.05.2010 5,00,000 Total 40,00,000

Thus, the "amount of cheque payments made till 21.01.2012" as per the registered purchase deed and excel sheet do not match.

(ii) The total cheque amount as per the excel sheet is as under:

Column Column description as Amount heading interpreted by the revenue Rce.Q Amounts paid through 46,50,000 cheque

chQ O/s. Outstanding amount 15,59,500 to be paid through cheque Total amounts in cheque 62,09,500

However, the total amount paid through cheque as per the registered purchase deed is Rs. 80,00,000/-.

Thus, even the "total amount in cheque" as per the registered purchase deed and excel sheet do not match.

(iii) The assessee being the co-owner of the property has only made the payment of Rs. 35,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/- as evident from her reply reproduced in paragraph no. 4 of the assessment order and the ledger of property in the assessee's books of accounts (P/B Pg. No. 31). In fact, the total payment made through cheque by the assessee till 21.01.2012 is Rs. 20,00,000/- as computed hereunder based on the ledger of the property: Date Amount

01.10.2009 5,00,000 19.02.2010 10,00,000 14.05.2010 5,00,000 Total 20,00,000

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13

However, cheque payments made by the assessee till 21.01.2012 as per excel sheet is Rs. 46,50,000/- which even exceeds the total payment of Rs. 35,00,000/- made by the assessee towards purchase of property. Thus, it is clear that the excel sheet does not record the correct details of cheque payments made by the assessee. ➤ Even otherwise, the argument of the department that cheque details given in the excel sheet match with the cheque details in the purchase deed is without any foundation and has already been raised and answered in the following judgments of this Hon'ble Tribunal by holding that merely because some details are matching, it can not be made a ground to confirm the addition on account of alleged payment of 'on money: • Rajesh Narendrakumar Desai v. DCIT - IT(SS)A Nos. 150- 151/Ahd/2023 • Kashish Gaurav Chandani v. ITO – IT(SS)A No. 147/Ahd/2023 • Kirtikumar Champaklal Shah v. ΙΤΟ - ΙΤΑ Νο. 1014/Ahd/2023” The ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the addition does not sustain.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is a delay of 409 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the detailed affidavit stating the reasons therein. The reasons appear to be genuine, hence the delay is condoned. It is pertinent to note that the Revenue’s observations that the assessee has paid on money to the HN Safal Group in respect of Bungalow No. 104 when tallied with the excel sheet, it appears that the cheque received by the Safal Group is only to the extent of Rs. 46,50,000/- to the actual cheque received by the Safal

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 Group is that of 80 lacs which is actual amount mentioned in the sale deed as a consideration. The details are as under:-

A copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 27-05-2013 gives the details of cheque payment as follows: Particulars of Payment of Price Serial Amount (In Cheuqe No. Name of Bank Rs.) Cheque Date and Branch No. 1 5,00,000/- Ch.No. 360627 Canara Bank Ch.Dt.08/10/2009 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.08/10/2009 Ahmedabad

2 5,00,000/- Ch.No. 500808 Canara Bank Ch.Dt.08/10/2009 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.08/10/2009 Ahmedabad 3 15,00,000/- Ch.No. 352474 Canara Bank Ch.Dt.27/11/2009 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt27/11/2009 Ahmedabad 4 10,00,000/- Ch.No.344143 Canara Bank

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 Ch.Dt.23/02/2010 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt23/02/2010 Ahmedabad 5 5,00,000/- Ch.No:344149 Canara Bank Ch.Dt.14/05/2010 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.14/05/2010 Ahmedabad 6 10,00,000/- Ch.No.841945 Canara Bank Ch.Dt.29/09/2012 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.04/10/2012 Ahmedabad 7 15,00,000/- Ch.No.842015 Canara Bank Ch.Dt. 14/02/2013 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.14/02/2013 Ahmedabad 8 5,00,000/- Ch.No.841950 Canara Bank Ch.Dt. 14/02/2013 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.15/02/2013 Ahmedabad 9 10,00,000/- Ch.No.841962 Canara Bank Ch.Dt.07/05/2013 Drive In Rd, Dpt.Dt.09/05/2013 Ahmedabad Total 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only).

As per excel sheet, total payment made through cheque till 21.01.2012 (date on excel sheet) was Rs. 46,50,000/-. However, as per Sale Deed, payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- only was made till 21.01.2012, as is evident from the payment details reproduced hereinabove. Thus, there was no correlation in actual cheque payment made by the assessee and the cheque payment as appearing in the excel sheet. In the absence of correlation in the cheque payments, the cash payment in the excel sheet also could not have been correlated. Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. that the excel sheet does not tally with the cheque amount appears to be correct. Beside this, when calculating the discounted amount mentioned in the said excel sheet it is the figure which was added as undisclosed on money payment but there was no proof or co-relation mentioned by the Assessing 8

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 Officer as to whether the assessee at any juncture has paid the said amount to the HN Safal Group. The admission before the Settlement Commission by the HN Safal Group has not categorically mentioned the assessee’s name individually but has made submissions/admissions in respect of entire search action conducted with the HN Safal Group. Thus, the conclusion of the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) that amount of Rs. 75.19 lacs was paid by the assessee to HN Safal Group as on money was based on presumptions and not on actual correlation of cheque payments. The ld. A.R. relied upon the decisions of various Tribunals and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (R/ Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 order dated 6-3-2024) are relevant in present assessee’s case. There is no direct or indirect evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer that the cash payment which was shown in the excel sheet was actually paid by the assessee to the developer i.e. HN Safal Group and no such conclusion could have been drawn considering the difference in cheque payments, as discussed earlier. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not survive.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03-03-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Suchitra Kamble) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Ahmedabad : Dated 03/03/2026 a.k.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT

I.T(SS).A No. 3/Ahd/2025 Meena Chirag Amin, A.Y. 2012-13 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →