Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Gaurav Gupta, appealed against an addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- made by the lower authorities as 'on-money' payment. This addition was based on a seized document from a search action on Sh. Krishna Sharma and Smt. Sheetal Sharma, which allegedly showed the assessee's name in connection with a property purchase and the impugned amount.
Held
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contentions, noting that the seized document, while listing the assessee's name and the amount, did not remotely indicate that the alleged 'on-money' was actually paid. The Revenue failed to provide corroboration for the payment, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the 'on-money' payment addition could be sustained solely based on a seized document that listed an amount but lacked corroboration of actual payment.
Sections Cited
Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076715221(1) dated 04.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee raises his sole substantive grievance directed against both the learned lower authorities’ assessment and lower appellate findings making on-money payment addition of Rs.12,50,000/- in his hands.
Gaurav Gupta 4. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that the impugned addition is very much based on the corresponding seized document in search action dated 02.02.2022 carried out in Sh. Krishna Sharma and Smt. Sheetal Sharma’s specified residential and business premises. And also that the assessee had admittedly purchased the property in issue which has not been disputed all along as well. Learned departmental representative’s case therefore is that we ought to uphold the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. A perusal of the assessment order dated 06.03.2024 at page 5 indicates that the learned assessing authority has itself reproduced the incriminating material/lose sheets found during the course of search itself wherein the assessee’s name comes at serial No. 15 regarding the asset agreed to be purchased/purchased on 07.12.2018. Last column in the said sheet reveals the impugned figure of Rs.12,50,000/- in the assessee’s and his brother’s name which form subject matter of adjudication. The same nowhere even remotely indicates that the impugned alleged on-money stood paid at anytime which is a clear cut instance of the same lacking the due corroboration thereof at the Revenue’s behest. We thus delete the impugned addition of Rs.12,50,000/- made in the assessee’s hands in very terms.