DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. MANU GUPTA, DHURI

(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT Shri Manu Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/o Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACAPG-4616-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 28-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The facts in captioned twin appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 are admittedly identical. First, we take up revenue’s appeal which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated 13- 11-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. DCIT / ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana [AO] u/s 143(3) on 19-03-2024. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of alleged payment of on- money for Rs.77.27 Lacs as unexplained investment as made by Ld. AO while framing the assessment against the assessee. The Ld. AR stated that the issue stand covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Private Ltd. (ITA Nos.880/Chd/2024 & ors. order dated 17-07-2025). The copy of the same has been placed on record. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. Proceedings before lower authorities 2.1 Pursuant to search action by the department u/s 132 in the case of M/s Home Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (HBPL) group of cases on 16-11-2021, the impugned assessment was framed. During search, various incriminating material were found and seized which indicated payment of on-money by the purchasers to HBPL. The assessee acted as one of the directors of HBPL. M/s HBPL is stated to be engaged in real estate business and developed a township by the name ‘Sunview Enclave’ in Ludhiana. 2.2 It was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee purchased SCO No.8 measuring 144.44 Square Yards in the said project for Rs.22 Lacs from HBPL. In assessment proceedings of HBPL, it was noted that the fair market value of the residential plots / SCOs as sold by HBPL was much higher than the registered value of the said properties. By referring to assessment findings in the case of HBPL, Ld. AO noted that the saleable value of the residential plots was determined at Rs.33,000/- per square Yards. Accordingly, the assessee was show-caused wherein Ld. AO proposed addition of alleged on-money. The assessee, vide its reply dated 15-03-2024, refuted the allegation of Ld. AO which did not find favor with Ld. AO. Going by the search findings and in the light of statements recorded therein, Ld. AO computed fair market value of the SCO at Rs.99.27 Lacs as against its registered value of Rs.22 Lacs and added the differential of Rs.77.27 Lacs as unexplained investment u/s 69B. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A), considering first appeal order Appeal No.10241/2020-21/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2023-24 dated 19-07-2024 for AY 2021-22 in the case of recipient M/s HBPL, wherein similar additions were deleted, held that the impugned addition would not be sustainable. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 3. As righty pointed out by Ld. AR, we find that the assessee as well as revenue preferred further appeal against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2021-22 in the case of HBPL before this Tribunal vide & 1036/Chd/2024 order dated 17-07-2025 wherein the appeal of the assessee was allowed whereas appeal of the revenue was dismissed. In other words, similar addition of alleged on-money in the case of recipient M/s HBPL stood ultimately deleted by the Tribunal.