Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 24,00,000 made by the lower authorities for alleged on-money payment. The original purchase agreement was for Rs. 78,00,000, but a subsequent agreement within a week reduced the price to Rs. 30,00,000.
Held
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that the addition was based on assumptions. The close proximity of the two agreements suggested the possibility of on-money payment, supporting the Revenue's claim.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 24,00,000 for alleged on-money payment is justified, considering the subsequent reduction in the purchase price and the proximity of the agreements.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083299198(1) dated 04.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.24,00,000/- representing alleged on- money payment in the assessee’s hands; in assessment order dated 20.06.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Next come the relevant facts. They does not appear to be much a dispute between the parties that the assessee and Ms.
Raman Kumar Beri Sujata Kaundal (co-purchaser) had executed the purchase agreement with M/s 32 Milestone Group stand represented by Sh. Anubhav Sharma etc. on 02.11.2021 for purchase of a commercial unit in issue for Rs.78,00,000/-. They admittedly made a payment of Rs.14,00,000/- on 09.11.2025. It is this agreement which was found/seized by the learned departmental authorities at the vendor’s premises during the course of search on 10.01.2021. It is made clear that the assessee had been ultimately found to have co-purchased the very property for Rs.30,00,000/- vide subsequent agreement dated 08.11.2021 i.e. executed within a week of the former one. It is this differential amount of Rs.48,00,000 ÷ 1/2 coming to Rs.24,00,000/-, which forms subject matter of addition in the assessee’s hands.
That being the case, learned counsel attributes the difference in the above sale/purchase consideration getting reduced from Rs.78,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- only as on account of change in the subject property’s dimensions which allegedly stood re-negotiated subsequently. Learned counsel could hardly dispute that there is not even an iota of discussion in the above latter’s agreement terms and conditions as to what formed the basis of impugned reduction in the purchase price from Rs.78,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-.
Learned counsel’s second argument is that the impugned addition is not based on any corroborative evidence as both the lower authorities have proceeded on mere assumptions and presumptions only. This tribunal finds no merit in the assessee’s instant latter argument as well as it is reiterated that both these agreement have been executed within a week which gives rise to an instance that possibility of the impugned on-money payment component could not be altogether denied in light of the foregoing facts and circumstances. I thus find merit in the Revenue’s vehement submissions supporting on- money addition of Rs.24,00,000/- made in the assessee’s hands.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.