Gurdeep Singh vs ACIT

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22, arises against the CIT(A)-30, New De lhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1078051121(1) dated 30.06.2025 , in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

It transpires during the co urse o f hear ing that both the learned lo wer authorities have added an amount of Rs.47,00,000/- as the assessee’ s on-money representing his r d undisclosed income; paid for purchase of a property at 3 Floor, C-94, Nir man Vihar, De lhi to the extent of ½ share. There is no dispute be tween the parties that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his assessment date d 25.03.2024 in furtherance to the department’ s se arch action dated 06.01.2021 carried out in M/s Hans Gro up of cases. He therefore, recorded his section 153C satisfaction on 29.09 .2022 to this effect which culminated in the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion.

Learned C IT-DR vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that the above search action had resulted in unearthing the assessee’s unexplained investment in cash which also stood duly collaborated by a w hatsap chat between Sh. Parveen K. Jain and Sh. Vaibhav Jain. His case therefore is that we ought to confirm the impugned addition since based on the specific incriminating material as we ll as the other evidence found/seized dur ing the course of search.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s ve hement submissions/stands all alo ng. We find no reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that the le arned departmental authorities had set into motion section 153 C proceedings against the assessee regarding his alleged unexplained investment/on-money transactions pertaining to E-92, Second Floor, Preet Vihar, De lhi whereas the addition in question has r d been made for some o ther property i.e. 3 Floor, C-94, Nirman Vihar, Delhi hav ing no re lation between them. This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We accordingly are of the considered view that bo th the learned lower authorities have erred in law and o n facts in making the impugned on-money addition of Rs.47,00,000/- in the assessee’s hands which stands deleted in very terms.

All other remaining pleadings between the par ties stand rendered acade mic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.