AMRIK SINGH,BULANSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3277/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 January 2026AY 2016-174 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 amounts of Rs. 25.40 lakhs each were not unexplained cash loans. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into a development agreement with developers, and a letter dated 18.08.2012, though outside the relevant assessment years, pertained to this agreement and the impugned amount. The Tribunal found that this factual position, that the sum was related to the development agreement, went unrebutted by the Revenue. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned sum was more in the nature of damages awardable to the assessee in case of non-fulfillment of the development agreement, rather than cash loans advanced. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that the findings of the lower authorities treating the impugned cash loans and any accrued interest as unexplained money deserved to be deleted. The appeals were allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Amrik Singh, has filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 3276, 3277 & 3278/Del/2025) against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. These orders were passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue in all appeals is the addition of Rs. 25.40 lakhs each as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Revenue's case is that these amounts represent alleged cash loans advanced by the assessee to one Sh. Naresh Chand Juneja, and the additions are justified. The assessee contends that these amounts were not cash loans but related to a development agreement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amounts of Rs. 25.40 lakhs each, treated as alleged cash loans and added as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18, are indeed unexplained cash loans or represent something else. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the impugned amounts were not cash loans but were related to a development agreement entered into with developers. The assessee relied on proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a letter dated 18.08.2012, which, although not falling within the assessment years, indicated the nature of the transaction. The assessee further contended that the sum was more in the nature of damages for non-fulfillment of the development agreement rather than cash loans advanced. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the learned lower authorities made the impugned additions based on information that the assessee had advanced alleged cash loans of Rs. 25.40 lakhs each to Sh. Naresh Chand Juneja, and these additions should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA
Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 29.01.2026

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s three appeals 3277 & 3278/Del/2025 for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017- 18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 25.03.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074998233(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074998436(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074998662(1) involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground raised

1.

1. in the instant three appeals seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his alleged cash loans of Rs.25.40 lakhs each, as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the instant as many assessments as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

1. 3. The Revenue’s case in this factual backdrop is that the learned lower authorities’ have made the impugned addition based on the corresponding information about the assessee having advanced the impugned alleged cash loans to one Sh. Naresh Chand Juneja which deserves to be upheld against him in all these three cases.

1.

4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand seeking to confirm the impugned identical addition. This is for the precise reason that going by the learned criminal court’s proceedings involving section 2 | P a g e 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (pages 36 to 38), we notice that there was a development agreement between the assessee and the developers concerned which involved the impugned amount in question going by the letter dated 18.08.2012 admittedly not falling in any of the three assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017- 18 herein. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This is indeed coupled with yet another fact that the impugned sum was more in the nature of damages as awardable to the assessee in case of non-fulfillment of the development agreement than cash loans advanced. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings adding the impugned cash loans as well as the interest accrued/arising thereupon deserve to be deleted. We order accordingly.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →