AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI M BALAGANESH, A. M.:
The appeal in ITA No.153/Del/2026 for AY 2019-20, arises out of the order of the Id National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'Id. CIT(A)', in short] dated 17.11.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 27.03.2024 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').
The Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs 97,50,000 under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment with Omaxe Limited.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. A search and seizure operation was carried out under section 132 of the Act in the case of Omaxe group wherein an excel sheet was found. In that excel sheet, it was revealed that name of the assessee was reflected to have made some cash payment of Rs 97,500 on account of purchase of property from Omaxe group. The learned AO sought to multiply the figures by 100 in respect of figures mentioned in the excel sheet and concluded that assessee had made cash payment of Rs 97,50,000 to Omaxe group and sought for explanation of the source of such payment. The assessee categorically denied by stating that he had not entered any cash transaction amounting to Rs 97,50,000 with Omaxe group during the year under consideration. Accordingly, it was submitted that the reopening per se is to be construed as bad in law as there was absolutely no evidence to prove that assessee had made cash payment of Rs 97,50,000 to Omaxe group and thereby falters the reason to believe of the learned AO that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The learned AO however, not being satisfied with the same, proceeded to complete the reassessment after making an addition of Rs 97,50,000 under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment made in Omaxe group. This action of the learned AO was upheld by the learned CITA.
The learned AR before us submitted that the case in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of of ITO vs Surendra Kumar Goyal in ITA No. 5622 / Del / 2025 and CO No. 43 /Del / 2026 for assessment year 2022-23 dated 27-2-2026. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:-
"4.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue's and the assessee's respective vehement stands. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the impugned addition is very much based on extrapolation of the amount emerging from the alleged loose sheet i.e. "83498" to the extent of adding "00"; coming of Rs.83,49,800/-. We afforded 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. This is indeed coupled with the fact that section 292C statutory presumption qua such seized records also goes against the department itself sey 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 seized document "83498" only to uphold 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.
5.Learned counsel fairly submits that the assessee does not wish to press for his cross objection CO No. 43/Del/2026. Rejected accordingly.
6.This Revenue's appeal ITA 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 placed in the respective case files.”
Similar view was taken by the coordinate bench of Chandigarh tribunal in the case of Anupama Gupta vs ITO in ITA No. 972 /Chd/ 2025 for assessment year 2019-20 dated 8-12-2025. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:-
“7.We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the findings given by the authorities below are based on an Excel sheet found during the search operation of the Omaxe Group. In fact, even in the Excel sheet, the figure written is only Rs. 8000. The Assessing Officer has multiplied it by 100 and made it Rs. 800000/-as payment in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings given by the Assessing Officer. The Id. AR argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are without any concrete evidence against the Assessee. He further argued that it is only the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the figure of Rs. 8000 may be read as Rs. 800000/-and the presumption of the Assessing Officer have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any evidence bringing on record. The AR argued that the addition made sustained. on presumption should not be
8.We have considered the findings given by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the AO has made the addition just on the basis of an Excel sheet entry of Rs. 8000/- by multiplying it with 100 without bringing on record any concrete evidence for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the presumption of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the addition. We find that there is no document available with the Assessing Officer for prompting him to multiply the figure of Rs. 8000/- by 100 making it Rs. 800000/-. It is just a presumption or suspicion.
9.We are of this considered view that in any matter whatsoever a strong, a suspicion made without brining on record any concrete evidence, no addition can be made / sustained. Therefore, we are not inclined to sustain the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Assessee's appeal on this issue is accordingly allowed.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we sustain the addition of Rs 97,500 and hold that the revenue was not justified in extrapolating the figures by applying a multiplying factor of 100 to the figure mentioned in excel sheet. Accordingly, the Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Since the appeal of the assessee is adjudicated on merits, the adjudication of other grounds raised by the assessee become academic in nature and they are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.