ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVALIK JHANVI INFRASPACE LLP, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 144/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 January 2026AY 2019-204 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue had already been deliberated upon in the case of the purchaser, M/s. Safal Goyal Realty LLP. In that case, both the CIT(A) and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had concurrently deleted the addition made by the AO on the allegation of 'on-money' payment. The Tribunal noted that the deletion in the purchaser's case was based on the finding that the addition was solely based on the statement of a real estate broker without corroborative evidence, that the purchase consideration was significantly higher than the Jantri value, and that both the seller and broker had denied any 'on-money' transaction. The Tribunal further observed that the AO could not disprove the second Memorandum of Understanding (MoU-2) and failed to bring any substantive evidence on record to establish the 'on-money' payment. Since the co-ordinate bench had affirmed the deletion in the purchaser's case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition in the assessee's case, which was made on the allegation of receiving the same 'on-money'. The Revenue could not point out any distinguishing fact or law. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal challenges the deletion of an addition of Rs. 36,82,91,993/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO alleged that the assessee, Shivalik Jhanvi Infraspace LLP, received 'on-money' from M/s. Safal Goyal Realty LLP on account of a land sale. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the CIT(A) had deleted a similar addition in the case of the purchaser, M/s. Safal Goyal Realty LLP, relying on a Tribunal order in that case. The Tribunal's previous order in the purchaser's case had affirmed the deletion of the addition made on the allegation of 'on-money' payment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 36,82,91,993/- made by the AO on account of alleged 'on-money' receipt by the assessee is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the deletion of a similar addition in the case of the purchaser? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the addition was wrongly made by the AO. The assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A) and a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of the purchaser, M/s. Safal Goyal Realty LLP, which had deleted the addition made in the purchaser's case on the allegation of 'on-money' payment to the assessee. The assessee contended that the Tribunal's decision in the purchaser's case, which affirmed the deletion due to lack of substantive evidence and reliance on established legal precedents, should be followed. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's contention, as reflected in the purchaser's case, was that since the sale deed reflected a lower documented price, it was inferred that an 'on-money' payment was made, justifying the invocation of Section 69B of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250,Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah
Hearing: 28/01/2026Pronounced: 30/01/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 15/10/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The Revenue, in this appeal, is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.36,82,91,993/- made by the Assessing Officer Asst. Year : 2019-20

(AO) u/s.69A of the Act alleging that the assessee had received ‘on-money’ from M/s.Safal Goyal Realty LLP on account of sale of land.

3.

At the outset, Ms. Nupur Shah, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) at page 15 onwards, wherein, he has observed that the addition of the identical amount was made in the case of purchaser, M/s.Safal Goyal Realty LLP alleging that the said company had made ‘on-money’ payment to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the order of this Tribunal passed in IT(ss)A No.37/Ahd/2024 and CO No.23/Ahd/2024 dated 26/06/2025 in the case of Safal Goyal Realty LLP, whereby, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has affirmed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made in the case of M/s.Safal Goyal Realty LLP on the allegation of payment ‘on-money’ by the said concern to the assessee. The Ld.Counsel has also relied upon the said order of the Tribunal dated 26/06/2025(supra).

4.

A perusal of the said order of the Tribunal reveals that in respect of identical addition in the case of purchaser, the Tribunal has affirmed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the said addition in the case of purchaser by observing as under:

“6. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that since the sale deed reflects a lower documented price, it is inferred that an 'on-money' payment of Rs. 36,82,91,993/-was made by the assessee; therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 69B of the Act.

7.

The Ld. AR on the other hand relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue in view of the lack of substantive evidence and relying on established legal precedents as referred by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order.

Asst. Year : 2019-20

8.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged on-money payment was solely based on the statement of Mr. Suresh Thakkar a real estate broker, without any corroborative evidence found during searches conducted at the premises of Mr. Thakkar and the seller. The Ld. CIT(A) also found that the purchase consideration paid by the assessee was significantly higher-almost eight times-than the Jantri value, indicating no suppression of value. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that both the seller and broker have categorically denied any on-money transaction, and the affidavit submitted by the assessee's partner, Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, further supports this. The Ld. A.O. considered the land value at Rs.66.33 crores based on the MoU-1 dated 01-12-2017 wherein Mr. Suresh Thakkar was one of the witness. However the above MoU-1 was not acted upon as the seller was not able to obtain clear possession of land and clear title. Therefore a fresh MoJ- 2 was entered on 18-01-2018 wherein Mr. Suresh Thakkar was not a party/witness, wherein the sale consideration is for Rs. 29.5 crores. In fact this MoU-2 and tally data were found during the search operation conducted at the premises of the seller namely M/s Shivalik Jhanvi Infraspace LLP. Further during the course of search, no on-money trial or cash trial found during the search operation at the premises of the seller. Further affidavit filed by the Partner of the assessee firm cannot be ignored when the seller as well as the broker have denied the existence of on-money transaction. The Assessing Officer could not disprove the MoU-2 entered on 18-01- 2018. Moreover, the Assessing Officer failed to bring any substantive evidence on record to establish the actual on-money payment by the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue on this ground is dismissed.”

5.

In view of this, the issue has already been deliberated upon in the case of the purchaser, wherein, concurrent finding have been given by the ld.CIT(A) and Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in favour of the purchaser in the case of M/s.Safal Goyal Reality LLP, deleting the addition made by the AO in the case of the said concern alleging payment of ‘on-money’. Consequently, the addition made by the AO in the case of the assessee on the allegation of receipt of the said ‘on-money’ will not be sustainable and the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, has rightly deleted the addition following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Safal Goyal Reality LLP.

Asst. Year : 2019-20

6.

The Ld.DR could not point out any distinguishing fact or law justifying our interference in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). There is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30 /01/2026. (Annapurna Gupta ) Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 30/01/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ#ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant "%थ$ / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →