Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2025) 10 ITAT CK 2587

Gaurav Malhotra vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 7 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 5121/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 283 words

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/107834435 (1) dated 10.07.2025, in proceed ings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of he aring that assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action ho lding him to have made cash payme nts totaling to Rs.9,73,600/- to M/s Omaxe Group, in assessment order dated 23.03.2024 as upheld in the lo wer appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, the tribunal’s attentio n is invited to page 124 in the paper book indicating cash payments receipt issued by M/s O maxe Group to the tune o f Rs.8,80,000/- dated 19.02.2011 in the name of assessee’s father Sh. V. K. Malhotra. There is again no dispute that even going by relevant tangib le material at pages 5, 6 and 7 of the paper book, there is no indication that the impugned payments had been made by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Group in the relevant previous year over and above the foregoing sum of Rs.8 ,80,000 /-. Be that as it may, the tribunal’s hereby quotes section 292C of the Act that contents of such seized documents indeed carry presump tion of correctness which goes against the department to this effe ct as well. The impug ned addition of Rs.9,73,600/-is deleted to the extent of Rs.8,80,000/- in very terms therefore. Necessary co mputatio n shall follow as per law.

5.

No other gro und or arg uments has been pressed during the course of hearing.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.