Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal C.O. No.225/Del/2025 for assessment year 2012- 13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in & C.O. No.225/Del/2025 short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-31 DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072170381(1), dated 15.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
This Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:
1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting 1 the addition of Rs. 2,70,50,000/- made by AO on account of cash amount received against sale of property situated at 3, Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, Delhi? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering statement of Sh. Rakesh Sejpal, employce of 2 assessee wherein he admitted that he received cash of Rs. 5.41 Crore in ten to fifteen installments from Sh. Vakamulla Chandrasekhar and his P.A. Sh. Pathak on behalf of M/s Maple Destination Dreambuilt Pvt. Ltd.? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made by AO on account of cash amount paid by assessee to Nisha Jain and Arora Farms Incha Pvt. Ltd. against purchase of property situated at DLF Farm, Village Chhatarpur, Delhi? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering the document impounded during survey containing details of cash payments made by assessee alongwith her husband for purchase of property from Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd.? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of assessee with regard to cash amount received from Pawan Goyal 2 | P a g e C.O. No.225/Del/2025 whereas the addition was made for unexplained cash given to Nisha Jain and Arora Farms India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal
raised.
3. Coming to the first and foremost issue between the parties, it transpires at the outset that the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to revive the impugned addition of Rs.2,70,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash amount/on-money received against sale of property at 3, Dera Mandi, Mehrauli, Delhi. We notice that this tribunal’s order in the buyer’s case i.e. M/s. Maple Destinations & Dreambuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 157 (Delhi – Trib.) has already settled the issue at rest while concluding that the same was not based on any supportive material. We thus conclude that the very addition sought to be revived in the assessee’s/vendor’s hands hardly carries any merit. Rejected accordingly.
4. The Revenue’s second substantive ground herein is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the assessee’s cash payments addition of Rs.2,72,50,000/-; vide following detailed discussion:
C.O. No.225/Del/2025 “17. Through Ground No. 6, it is seen that appellant challenges the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made by the AO vide Para 13.3 of the Assessment Order. Upon perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the AO has stated that during the year under consideration, the appellant along with his spouse (both having equal share) has made the payment in cash for investment in property bearing address 733/2, Village Chhatarpur, Mehrauli. The observations made by the AO are reproduced hereunder:
The appellant during the course of hearing has submitted that the transaction was cancelled and to substantiate the same she has placed the cancellation deed(s) on record. Furthermore, the appellant has drawn my attention to Para 13.2 of the Assessment Order wherein the AO had stated that the source of the funds of payment to Jain Family is out of cash received from Shri Pawan Gupta for sale of Chattarpur Farm House. The appellant submits that the contention of the AO that the cash received from Shri Pawan Gupta was used to buy the property bearing address 733/2, Village Chhatarpur, Mehrauli, is flawed. She submits that while framing the assessment order for AY 2013-14, the AO had alleged that the appellant along with her spouse has sold a property to one Shri Pawan Gupta and has received cash amounting to Rs. 22,35,00,000/-. Thus, the AO made the addition of Rs. 11,17,50,000/- (50% of Rs. 22,35,00,000) in the hands of the appellant and other 50% in the hands of her spouse. The appellant submits that the said addition of Rs. 11,17,50,000/- (50% of Rs. 22,35,00,000) stands deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Shri Picheswar Gadde v. Income Tax Officer [ITA Number 4638/Del/2019]. Furthermore, the Departmental appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also stands dismissed. Thus, the appellant submitted that when the ITAT and Hon’ble High Court have held that no cash has been received on account of sale of Chattarpur Farm House from Shri Pawan Gupta then in such a scenario the version of AO that the said cash has been used for making payment to Jain family is untenable and flawed.
After a careful perusal of the Assessment Order, the submissions made during the appellate proceedings, and the documentary evidence placed on record, including the Paper Book, it is observed that the Cancellation Deed establishes that the transaction for the purchase of the property was legally rescinded. The AO, despite acknowledging the existence of this Cancellation Deed, failed to provide any valid reasoning for disregarding its legal implications. Moreover, the contention that the cash payment was sourced from a transaction with Shri Pawan Gupta lacks merit, as the addition related to this source has already been deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, and the Department’s appeal against the deletion has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. I have, following the order of Hon’ble ITAT and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, also deleted the addition in the case of appellant for AY 2013-14.
Therefore, based on the totality of facts and evidence presented, the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made to the income of 6 | P a g e C.O. No.225/Del/2025 the appellant is not sustainable in law as well as on facts and is liable to be deleted. I hold accordingly. Hence, the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made by the AO is hereby deleted.”
We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant latter substantive ground as well. This is for the precise reason that not only the cash/on-money receipt theory in the assessee’s hands stands already rejected before the tribunal, but also the corresponding land transaction stood cancelled as per the CIT(A)’s detailed lower appellate discussion which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the very issue appears to have attained finality before this tribunal as well as in the hon’ble jurisdictional high court (supra). Rejected accordingly. The Revenue fails in therefore. The assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 225/Del/2025 stands rendered academic.