AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order, 04.03.2024 passed in DIN & case nos. 12568/2017-18, dated 10.07.2025, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ assessment order dated 30.03.2023 as well as the CIT(A) lower appellate findings adding the alleged unexplained investment on account of Rs. 15,37,500/- representing the alleged on-money payment made to the vendor concerned. The CIT(A) detailed lower appellate discussion upholding assessment actions to this effect; reads as under:
“ 6. Ground Nos. 1 to 4: The brief facts of this case are that appellant filed his ITR for the year under reference on 21.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,77,400/-. A search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 06.02.2019 in the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain related to Kochar Group. During the course of said proceedings, incriminating documents pertaining to appellant were found and accordingly, proceeding u/s 153C of the Act was initiated in the case of appellant. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. The assessment in the case was completed on 30.03.2023 at an assessed income of Rs. 22,14,900/- after making an addition of Re 15,37,500/-u/s 69C of the Act.
6.1Under these grounds of appeal, the appellant challenged the addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act. The appellant submitted that the incriminating document found during the search operation Le. copy of agreement to sell and purchase cum advance receipt dated 05.10.2017 in respect of a piece of land, was not finally executed due to existing policy of land transfer of Govt. of Uttarakhand. The appellant also denied of paying any amount in cash to seller in this transaction.
6.2I have perused the assessment order and submissions of appellant. It is noted that appellant has not brought any credible documentary evidences on record to substantiate its claim in respect of cancellation/non execution of the agreement to purchase done with Sh. Jain. Also, it is noted that amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- paid by him to seller through cheque/banking channels. However, no evidences could be furnished later on by appellant to establish the return of this amount by seller Sh. Rajiv Jain to him, in case of cancellation or non-execution of the deal.
6.3On the other hand, AO has given detailed findings after analysing the copy of impugned agreement with related paper sheets found during the search operation in which details of payments through banking channel and in cash by appellant were clearly reflected. On the basis of the same, AO identified the share of appellant along with 4 other buyers, purchased an immovable property on an agreed consideration of Rs. 1,34,37,500/- as per the agreement made and as per the registered sale deed in the name of each buyer, amount paid in total by them was Rs. 57,50,000/-, the difference amount of Rs. 76,87,500/- was paid in cash to sellers. The share of appellant in this cash payment was calculated at Rs. 15,37,500/- and in absence of any explanation, this amount was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C by AO. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the addition made by AO on this issue and accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. ”
Both the parties vehemently support their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. We make it clear that there is no dispute about the learned departmental authorities have carried out the search in question on 06.02.2019 in M/s Sanjay Jain group of cases leading to initiation of section 153C proceedings against the assessee vide notice dated 31.03.2022 finally culminating in assessment order assessing the alleged on-money; passed on 30.03.2023. Meaning thereby date of search in such a third party’s case has to be read as the date on which the assessee’s Assessing Officer receives the corresponding search records; coming to F.Y. 2021-22 in A.Y. 2022-23. And that going by the very analogy, the impugned assessment year A.Y. 2018-19 turns out to be an “unabated” one wherein any addition to be made based on the specific seized material only in light of PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).
Learned CIT(DR) vehemently submits in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order herein at pages 8 to 12 has duly extracted the specific seized material itself against the assessee whilst making the impugned addition. A perusal thereof suggests that the assessee’s name does not even find a mention therein so as to treat the same as an incriminating documents in his case which could held as forming basis of as many addition made herein. We thus conclude in these facts that both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing this alleged on-money payment of Rs. 15,37,500/- is not sustainable in law as well as on facts. The same is hereby deleted therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.