AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM.
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10475668 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.
2.(i) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 18.11.2020 for A.Y. 2020-21, declaring income of Rs. 23,65,100/-. Subsequently, a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at various offices and residential premises in the case of Omaxe Group on 14.03.2022, which led to seizure of various evidences including hard disk containing excel files. The correlation of seized evidence depicted that the data was related to various companies of Omaxe Group, it contained unaccounted cash transactions pertaining to various companies of Omaxe Group, the data of unaccounted cash transaction was backdated by 10 years and the amount mentioned in the excel sheets were suppressed by a factor of 100 i.e. to arrive at the actual amount, the value given in the sheet was multiplied by 100.
The data from excel sheet disclosed that the assessee has made investment in the property in project ‘Omaxe Group Connaught place-IV’ having unit place OCPK/Lower Ground /183 against which cash payment of Rs. 50,000/- was reflected. This amount was multiplied with factor 100 and correct cash payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Omaxe Group was made on 26.12.2019, treating it as escaped income. After recording satisfaction note and after obtaining prior approval of PCIT, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.03.2024 was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee filed return in response thereof on 13.08.2024, declaring total income of Rs. 28,91,940/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee seeking details and explanations with respect to the immovable property purchased during the year under consideration and the aforesaid amount paid in cash to the Omaxe Group. The assessee submitted that during the year, he had booked the aforesaid property in project ‘Omaxe Connaught Place’ and has made payment of one crore by way of bank transfer. The assessee denied having made any cash payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- to Omaxe Group. Assessee further submitted an affidavit to this effect and confirmation from the Omaxe Group. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied and on the basis of the findings of the investigation wing treated the figures of Rs. 50,000/- in the excel sheet as Rs. 50,00,000/- and added as unexplained investment in the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.
Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal.
Appellant assessee has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:
“1.That CIT(A) erred in passing the order under reference upholding the order of AO without correctly considering and appreciating the facts, submissions and case law submitted by the Appellant and therefore, same is unreasonable, unjustified and accordingly, deserves to be quashed or set aside.
2.That CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant without appreciating that in the case of the Appellant there has been no material and no proper satisfaction was recorded by the AO.
3.That CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that approval u/s 151 of the Act was also not granted by the Approving Authority after considering facts of the case and applying her mind and in fact the process of recording satisfaction by the AO, recommendation by the Addl. Commissioner and approval by PCIT and also issuing the notice on the same date shows that the whole process was completed in a hurried and mechanical manner without proper application of mind and considering the facts of the case.
4.That CIT(A) further erred in upholding the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the AO alleging cash payment made by the Appellant to Omaxe Ltd. without appreciating that the Appellant had submitted an affidavit to the effect that no cash payment was made and this fact was also confirmed by Omaxe Ltd. and addition was made by the AO without sufficient basis and due application of mind and also without confronting any evidence / material / statement relied upon by him.
5.That CIT(A) also erred in taking a view that cross examination of witness on whose statement AO had relied upon was not necessary without appreciating that AO was duty bound to provide copy of statements recorded u/s 132(4) or any other document(s) or material on the basis of which notice u/s 148 was issued and to provide an opportunity for cross examination of the person whose statement was recorded and relied upon by the AO, particularly, when the Appellant had specifically requested to the AO.
6.That CIT(A) also erred in referring to and relying upon certain judgements while adjudicating each of the grounds of appeal, which judgments were not relevant to the facts of the case of the Appellant.
7.That CIT(A) also erred in upholding the determination of tax liability in the case of the Appellant in terms of section 115BBE of the Act alleging addition of Rs.50 lacs u/s 69 of the Act and also initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act without appreciating that above sections are not applicable in the facts of the case of the Appellant
8.That in the facts and the circumstances of the case the assessment order and the demand raised by the AO ought to have been quashed by CIT(A).
……………..”
Perused the records and heard ld representatives for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue.
On the basis of various grounds raised hereinabove, the main point for determination under appeal is, as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained investment, made by the assessee in the immovable property, u/s 69 of the Act?
Ld representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that the assessee has made only payment of 1 crore through banking channels for the purchase of said property and no cash payment was made to the Omaxe Ltd. which is confirmed by the Omaxe Ltd. by issuing a confirmation letter to this effect. It is further submitted that the appellant had subsequently cancelled the booking and had received the amount back in July, 2023. It is further submitted that on the basis of same search on ‘Omaxe Group’ and in similar circumstances, additions were made by assessing officer in the cases of various persons who had booked commercial or residential flats in project of Omaxe. The various benches of this tribunal have already deleted the said additions being based on surmises and conjectures. The relevant orders related to the said deletions are as under:
(i). Amarjot Singh Sohi - HUF v. ITO, ITA No. 1065/CHANDI/2025 decided on 07.01.2026 - ITAT Chandigarh.
(ii). Anupama Gupta v. ITO, ITA No. 972/CHD/2025 decided on 08.12.2025-ITAT Chandigarh.
(iii). Nitin Arora v. DCIT, ITA No. 8283/Del/2025 decided on 27.02.2026 ITAT Delhi.
(iv). Ranjana Kumari v. DCIT, No.- ITA No. 1056/CHANDI/2025 ITAT Chandigarh, decided on 08.04.2026 (para 4 of the decision).
(v). Ram Avtar Mittal v. ITO, ITA Nos. 6052, 6006 and 6007/DEL/2025 decided on 29.04.2026 - ITAT Delhi.
(vi). Saima Sarwat Malik v. ITO, ITA No. 7447/DEL/2025 decided on 16.03.2026 - ITAT Delhi.
(vii). Ajay Munjal v. DCIT, ITA No. 8585/Del/2025 decided on 20.05.2026-ITAT Delhi.
(viii). Pawan Agrawal v. ITO, ITA No. 386/AGR/2025 decided on 26.11.2025-ITAT Agra.
Ld Sr DR relies on the impugned order.
We notice that the addition has been made on the basis of excel sheet entry of Rs. 50,000/- by multiplying it with the factor of ‘100’ without any cogent and convincing evidence to corroborate the same. There is no logical deduction or reasoning to multiply the figure of Rs. 50,000/- by 100, making it Rs. 50,00,000/-. The confirmation letter dated 21.03.2025 is part of assessee’s paper book at page 54. The ‘Omaxe Group’ has confirmed that during the F.Y. 2019-20, the property booked by assessee vide Case No. OCPK/2945 having unit No. OCPK/Lower Ground/183 is in the project namely “Omaxe Connaught Place”, situated at Greater NOIDA and being developed by M/s Omaxe Ltd. and received the amount of one crore through RTGS on 24.12.2019 from Ambrish Garg (assessee). It was further confirmed that no other amount was received by the Omaxe Group. The assessee has all along denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. The whole case of the revenue stem from search action on the seller group coupled with various statements recorded. Neither the seized documents ever provided nor any opportunity of cross examination has ever been provided to the assessee. The assessee has also filed an affidavit to the effect that no such cash has ever been paid to M/s Omaxe Ltd. The assessee could not be expected to prove negative. No addition could be made merely on presumptions and assumptions. The various co-ordinate benches of the tribunal in aforelisted matters(i to viii) have deleted the respective additions made in consequence of the same search dated 14.03.2022. The addition in the instant case, being based on same search has no leg to stand. The impugned order is, thus, unsustainable. The aforesaid point is determined in positive in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.