SH. MOHINDER SINGH ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-49(5), DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.2615/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13)
Mohinder Singh Arora,
WZ-59, 2nd Floor, Jail Road,
Virender Nagar, New Delhi 110058
PAN: AASPA-4694-G
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Ward -49(5)
Delhi
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : S/Shri Lalit Mohan & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, SR.DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
29/07/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
29/07/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 27.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee in appeal has inter alia assailed validity of assessment u/s. 147
of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as well as, addition on merits.
2
3. Shri Lalit Mohan, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment was made in the case of assessee for AY 2012-13 u/s. 147 of the Act.
Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for the reason that the assessee had allegedly purchased plot No. 58 admeasuring 100 sq yards in Vikram
Vihar, C Blcok, Nilothi Extension, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- and had paid advance of Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.10.2011. The Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.43,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.
The aforesaid addition was based on receipt dated 06.10.2011 which was allegedly issued by one Shri Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Kasturi Lal confirming receipt of advance payment of Rs.5,00,000/- for sale of aforesaid plot. The case of the assessee was not properly represented before the AO. The AO made addition of Rs.43,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act in proceeding u/s. 144 of the Act. Against the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 for AY 2011-12, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had made submissions before the CIT(A) that the assessee has not purchased any property from Rajesh Kumar son of late Shri
Kasturi Lal, R/o H.No. A-72, Vikas Vihar, Nilothi Extension, New Delhi 110041. No such receipt/agreement as has been reproduced in the assessment order was ever entered between the assessee and Rajesh Kumar nor any advance of Rs.5,00,000/- as mentioned in the said receipt/agreement was paid by the assessee to Rajesh Kumar. The ld. Counsel refers to the submissions of the assessee dated 29.03.2019 made before AO at page no. 11 and 12 of the paper book. He pointed that the receipt which has been referred to in the assessment order is fabricated and has been maliciously provided by Gurvinder Dodhi to the Department. Whereas, Gurvinder Dodhi is himself a notorious character against
3
whom criminal proceedings are pending in various cases. The ld. AR further referred to the affidavit at page no. 52 and 53 of the paper book wherein Rajesh
Kumar s/o Late Shri Kasturi Lal has categorically denied to have entered into any agreement for sale of house with the assessee in respect of plot no. 58, Khasra no. 40/9 measuring 100 sq yard in Vikram Vihar, C Block, 20 feet Road, Nilothi
Extension, Delhi-41. 4. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
She submitted that during assessment proceedings, the assessee never rebutted the fact of agreement for purchase of plot. The assesee in fact did not bother to respond to the notices issued by the AO.
5. Submissions made by rival sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined and the documents furnished by the assessee in the paper book perused. The AO has made addition of Rs.43,00,000/- on the ground that the assessee has allegedly purchased property for a total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- i.e. plot no. 58, Khasra no. 40/9, Vikram Vihar, C Block, 20 feet
Road, Nilothi Extension, Delhi-41 from one Rajesh Kumar and the assessee has paid in cash Rs.5,00,000/- as advanced for purchase of aforesaid property.
Whereas the assesssee has denied to have purchased any property from Rajesh
Kumar during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. In support of his submission he also placed on record an affidavit from Rajesh Kumar stating that no such property was sold by him during the relevant period to the assessee.
Though, the aforesaid affidavit was allegedly furnished by the assessee before the authorities below, neither the Assessing Officer now the CIT(A) has taken
4
cognizance of the aforesaid affidavit. Once having denied the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee, onus shifts on the Department to prove the execution of said agreement. The assessee cannot prove negative. The authorities below have failed to verify the fact from the Registering Authority as to whether any such property has been registered in the name of the assessee during the relevant period or could have issued summons to the vendor Rajesh Kumar u/s.
133(6) of the Act for further examination/ cross examination.
5. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case and documents on record,
I am of considered view that the addition of Rs.43,00,000/- is unsustainable in the absence of any cogent evidence. The assessee succeeds on ground of appeal no. 2
& 3. 6. Since, no submissions were made at this stage on legal issue raised in ground of appeal no. 1, the same is left open.
7. Thus, in light of facts of the case, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 29th day of July, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 18/09/2025
NV/-
5
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.