Raman Kumar Beri vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083299198(1) dated 04.12.2025, in proceed ings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).

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

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made sectio n 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.24 ,00,000/- representing alleged on-money payment in the assessee’s hands; in assessment order dated 20.06.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Next come the relevant facts. They does not appear to be much a dispute between the par ties that the assessee and Ms. Sujata Kaundal (co-purchaser) had executed the purchase agreement w ith M/s 32 Milestone Group stand r epresented by Sh. Anubhav Sharma etc. on 02.11.2021 for p urchase of a commercial unit in issue for Rs.78,00,000/-. They admittedly made a payme nt of Rs.14,00 ,000/- on 09.11.20 25. It is this agreement which was fo und/seized by the le arned departmental authorities at the vendor’s premises during the course of search on 10.01.2021. It is made clear that the assessee had been ultimate ly found to have co-purchased the very property for Rs.30,00,0 00/- vide subsequent agreement dated 08.11.2021 i.e. executed within a week of the former one. It is this differential amount of Rs.48,00,000 ÷ 1/2 coming to Rs.24,00,000/-, which forms subject matter o f addition in the assessee’s hands.

That being the case, learned counsel attribute s the differe nce in the above sale/purchase consideration getting reduced from Rs.78 ,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- only as on account of change in the subject property’s dimensions w hich allegedly stood re-negotiated subsequently. Learned co unsel could hardly disp ute that there is not even an iota of discussion in the above latter’s agreeme nt terms and conditions as to what formed the basis of impugned reduction in the purchase price from Rs.78,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-.

Learned counsel’s se cond argument is that the impugned additio n is not based on any corroborative evidence as both the lower authoritie s have proceeded on mere assumptions and presump tions only. This tribunal finds no merit in the assessee’s instant latter argument as well as it is reiterated that both these agreement have been executed within a week which gives rise to an instance that possibility of the impugned on-money payment component could not be altogether de nied in light of the foregoing facts and circumstance s. I thus find merit in the Revenue’s veheme nt submissions supporting on-money addition of Rs.24,00,00 0/- made in the assessee’s hands.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.