Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises from an addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- made on account of alleged on-money payment for a property, which was confirmed by the lower authorities. The addition was based on a search action and subsequent Section 153C proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition was made for a property unrelated to the Section 153C proceedings initiated based on the search action. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in making the impugned addition.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under Section 153C proceedings was justified when the property in question was unrelated to the search action? Whether the lower authorities erred in law and facts in making the addition?
Sections Cited
143(3), 153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22, arises against the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1078051121(1) dated 30.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.47,00,000/- as the assessee’s on-money representing his undisclosed income; paid for purchase of a property at 3rd Floor, C-94, Nirman Vihar, Delhi to the extent of ½ share. There is no dispute between the parties that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his assessment dated 25.03.2024 Gurdeep Singh in furtherance to the department’s search action dated 06.01.2021 carried out in M/s Hans Group of cases. He therefore, recorded his section 153C satisfaction on 29.09.2022 to this effect which culminated in the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion.
Learned CIT-DR vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that the above search action had resulted in unearthing the assessee’s unexplained investment in cash which also stood duly collaborated by a whatsap chat between Sh. Parveen K. Jain and Sh. Vaibhav Jain. His case therefore is that we ought to confirm the impugned addition since based on the specific incriminating material as well as the other evidence found/seized during the course of search.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement submissions/stands all along. We find no reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that the learned departmental authorities had set into motion section 153C proceedings against the assessee regarding his alleged unexplained investment/on-money transactions pertaining to E-92, Second Floor, Preet Vihar, Delhi whereas the addition in question has been made for some other property i.e. 3rd Floor, C-94, Nirman Gurdeep Singh Vihar, Delhi having no relation between them. This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We accordingly are of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned on-money addition of Rs.47,00,000/- in the assessee’s hands which stands deleted in very terms.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.