Income Tax Officer vs Surender Kumar Goyal

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 along with assessee’s cross objection CO No. 43/Del/2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23 arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078567614(1) dated 16.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

Next comes the first and foremost issue between the parities on merits. There is har dly any dispute that the le arned assessing authority had added an amount of Rs.83,49,800/- in the assessee’s hands as representing his unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act going by an excel shee t found/seized by the departmental authorities in the course of search dated 14.03.2022 in the develo per M/s Omax Group of case s. We make it clear that this excel sheet has been fairly reproduced at page 8 o f the assessment order dated 22.03.2024 itself wherein the correct figure as noticed there from is Rs.83,498/- only. The CIT(A) has reversed the impugned addition inter alia for the reaso n that not only the assessee had sold/transferre d the unit in questio n on 03.07.2021 but also the allege d on-mo ney addition lacks due corroboration against him in the assessment pro ceedings. It is in this factual backdro p that the Revenue seeks to revive the impugned addition in entirety whereas the assessee has preferred his cross objection challenging validity of the impugned reo pening itself.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessee’s respective veheme nt stands. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the impugned addition is very much based on extrapolation o f the amount emerging from the alleged loose sheet i.e. “83498” to the extent of adding “00”; coming o f Rs.83 ,49,800/-. We affor ded fair opportunity to the department to support the impugned extrapolation by way of substantiation thereof based on any material discussed in assessment order. No such records have seen in the light of the day till date. T his is indeed coupled with the fact that section 292C statutory presumption qua such seized records also goes against the department itse lf as there is further no scope of any extrapolation in absence of relevant supportive evidence as well. We thus deem it appropriate to go by the actual figure in the se ized document “83498” only to upho ld the impugned addition to the very extent against the assessee in these peculiar facts and circumstances. The Revenue instant sole substantive grievance is partly accepted in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow.

Learned counsel fairly submits that the asse ssee does not wish to press for his cross objection CO No. 43/Del/2026. Rejected accordingly.

This Revenue’s appeal IT A No. 5622/Del/2025 is partly allowed and the assessee’s cross objection CO No . 43/Del/2026 is dismissed as not pressed. A copy of this common order be place d in the respective case files.