AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , Delhi-26 (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 15/09/2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.
The grounds of appeal are as under: -
“1.That the Ld. A.O. erred on facts and in law in completing assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act at an income of rs. 12,91,920/-.
2.That the Ld. A.O. erred on facts and in law in completing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without considering the details and submissions filed by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings.
3.That the Ld. A.O. erred in laws as well as on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 56(2)(ix) of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on account of the forfeiture of the advance received on the sale of the property.
4.That the Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. in Section 69A of the Act and re-characterizing the said additions of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the provision of Section 56(2)(ix) of the Act.”
Brief facts of the case are that, a Search &Seizure action u/s 132 of the Act wascarried out in the case of Pratik Bansal, Saurav Gupta & Others Group on 28.12.2020. The assessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee were initiated by way of issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Act, on 21.02.2023. The assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act inthe case was completed on 26.02.2024 at an assessed income of Rs. 12,91,920/-, after making the addition of(i) Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained money, u/s 69A of Act and (ii) Rs.5,00,000/- as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(ix), on account of advance forfeited on sale of property.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.02.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15/09/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee canvassing on Ground No. 3 of the Grounds of Appeal submitted that the Assessee initially entered into agreement to sale the property bearing Plot No. 572, Rohini to Sh. S. K. Mittal for Rs. 43,50,000/-,wherein received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- have been received in cash and another 5,00,000/- received through banking transaction. Further contended that the said agreement got cancelled due to Covid Pandemic. The said property has been sold to Smt. Kshipra Mittal on 19/01/2020 and the previous amount received through cheque has been adjusted in the sale consideration. Therefore, submitted that no addition can be made under Section 56(ii)(ix) of the Act can be made and the amount is not forfeited.
Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In so far as the advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, received from S. K. Mittal through banking transaction, the same has been adjusted in the subsequent agreement entered into with Smt. Kshipra Mittal. Thus, the Assessee has not forfeited the advance sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-, therefore, question of invoking of provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act does not arise. According, the said addition cannot be sustained. Thus, the Ground No. 3 of the Assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made under Section 56(2)(ix) of the Act is hereby deleted.
The Ld. Counsel arguing on Ground No. 4 of the Appeal, submitted that in so far balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is concerned, the A.O. erroneously not accepted the contention of the Assessee that the Assessee has returned the amount to the purchaser. Thus, submitted that both the authorities below have committed error in confirming the said addition.
it is the specific case of the Assessee before the A.O. that the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/- received by way of cash has been returned to S. K. Mittal. However, the Ld. A.O. disbelieve the version of the Assessee without making any enquiry and without their being any cogent evidence or the statement, made the addition. In view of the above, and also considering the amount involved, we find no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, by allowing Ground No. 4, we delete the additionof Rs. 5,00,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.