← All Phrases

“on-money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69BSection 69B1,574 judgments

The decision most relied on for on-money is CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654), cited in 471 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on on-money

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar
263 ITR 610 · 2003 · High Court
212
citing judgments

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
296 ITR 619 · 2008 · High Court
175
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central-2 v. Umesh Ishrani
108 Taxmann.com 437 · 2019 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on entries in loose papers found during a search without conducting any independent inquiry or verification from the alleged seller or developer. Reliance solely on digital records without corroborative evidence is insufficient for an addition.

CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah
307 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
166
citing judgments

Additions on account of on-money receipts cannot be justified solely based on loose papers or 'sauda-chithis' without evidence of actual payment or a clear indication of a completed transaction within those documents.

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
302 ITR 63 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.
159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT
304 ITR 52 · 2008 · High Court
132
citing judgments

When assessing income from undisclosed or unrecorded sales, the entire sale proceeds cannot be added to the assessee's income; instead, only the net profit embedded in such unaccounted sales, determined by applying the assessee's net profit rate, should be taxed.

Judgments citing on-money

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 773/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 772/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S New World Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5051/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-22, Ltd., New Delhi 401, Vipps Centre, 2 Community Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaccn1600L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.120/Del/2015 [In Ita No.5051/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 With C.O. No.218/Del/2012 [In Ita No.4011/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2007-08 With C.O. No.1/Del/2025 [In Ita No.4010/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle-22, 401, Vipps Centre, 2 New Delhi Community Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaccn1600L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

this factual backdrop that we take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 5051/Del/2012 as the “lead” case wherein it seeks to revive on-money addition of Rs.8.99 crores; made in the course of assessment framed on 30.12.2009 and deleted in the lower appellate discussion reading as under: “7. Finding ... allowed.” 5. Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterates the Revenue’s pleadings based on the assessment findings that the Assessing Officer had rightly added the on-money sum of Rs.8.99 crores going by the contents of the seized material (annexure-6, page 67) 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.5051/Del/2012

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4010/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-22, Ltd., New Delhi 401, Vipps Centre, 2 Community Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaccn1600L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.120/Del/2015 [In Ita No.5051/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 With C.O. No.218/Del/2012 [In Ita No.4011/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2007-08 With C.O. No.1/Del/2025 [In Ita No.4010/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle-22, 401, Vipps Centre, 2 New Delhi Community Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaccn1600L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

this factual backdrop that we take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 5051/Del/2012 as the “lead” case wherein it seeks to revive on-money addition of Rs.8.99 crores; made in the course of assessment framed on 30.12.2009 and deleted in the lower appellate discussion reading as under: “7. Finding ... allowed.” 5. Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterates the Revenue’s pleadings based on the assessment findings that the Assessing Officer had rightly added the on-money sum of Rs.8.99 crores going by the contents of the seized material (annexure-6, page 67) 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.5051/Del/2012

P.Shanmugasundaram (HUF), Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1997/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

factual background and considering the fact that the assessee was one of the purchasers of the property, Ld. AO proceeded to add the excess on-money allegedly paid under the transactions in the hands of the assessee. The case of the assessee is that Smt. Vanitha Mohan was neither

Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan, Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle - 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1996/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

factual background and considering the fact that the assessee was one of the purchasers of the property, Ld. AO proceeded to add the excess on-money allegedly paid under the transactions in the hands of the assessee. The case of the assessee is that Smt. Vanitha Mohan was neither

Shanmugasundaram Umashankar, Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1995/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

factual background and considering the fact that the assessee was one of the purchasers of the property, Ld. AO proceeded to add the excess on-money allegedly paid under the transactions in the hands of the assessee. The case of the assessee is that Smt. Vanitha Mohan was neither

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennerasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1153/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

submitted that the impugned addition is based on certain documents as found from the locker of a third-party. The same contained details of on-money payment by the assessee and Ld. AO was quite right in adding the same to the income of the assessee ... only. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the loose sheets had no signatures, dates or clear context making it ambiguous. The AO presumed on-money payments based on vendors’ names and cheque amounts. However, vendors as well as the assessee denied exchange of any on-money in the purchase

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Amutha Thennarasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1152/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

submitted that the impugned addition is based on certain documents as found from the locker of a third-party. The same contained details of on-money payment by the assessee and Ld. AO was quite right in adding the same to the income of the assessee ... only. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the loose sheets had no signatures, dates or clear context making it ambiguous. The AO presumed on-money payments based on vendors’ names and cheque amounts. However, vendors as well as the assessee denied exchange of any on-money in the purchase

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

decisions cited herein above, we cannot conclusively agree on the finding of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that the assessee has paid on-money of Rs. 14,09,25,00/- to the sellers of the property because the two evidence relied by the Ld. Revenue Authorities viz., the data retrieved from ... hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made for Rs. 14,09,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee towards on-money paid for the purchase of the residential property”. 17. In view of this matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also