DCIT Vs Abhipush Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Unsigned Third-Party Excel Sheet Can’t Establish On-Money; 153A View Already Formed — Reassessment on Same Facts Treated as Change of Opinion; Additions u/s 69B & 69C Deleted
This Revenue appeal arises from deletion of additions made in reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against Abhipush Properties Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18. The Assessee had originally purchased only an open plot in the Kalhaar Blues & Greens project & this transaction, including the purchase deed, source of funds, bank statements & all related documents, had already undergone full scrutiny in the 153A assessment completed on 17.12.2019 without any addition. Despite this, on the basis of an Insight Portal alert and an unsigned Excel sheet allegedly found on the laptop of a Navratna Group employee, the Assessing Officer reopened the case & treated Rs. 35,01,500 as unexplained investment u/s 69B & Rs. 1,05,00,000 as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, claiming these were “on-money” payments for land & construction.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment, holding that reopening on precisely the same facts already examined in 153A amounted to a mere review & was barred under the ratio of Kelvinator, Bajaj Allianz & settled law that section 147 cannot be used to re-examine a concluded issue. The CIT(A) also found that the assumption itself was factually incorrect because the Assessee had not purchased a constructed villa; only an open plot was purchased. Construction on the plot was carried out by NODPL at its own cost, & when the Assessee eventually sold the unit, buyers made separate payments — land value to the Assessee & construction value directly to NODPL. Thus, the allegation that Assessee paid on-money for construction was impossible on facts.
Further, the unsigned Excel sheet seized from a third party lacked evidentiary value as per binding Gujarat High Court rulings in PCIT v. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia & Bharat A. Mehta. The Excel sheet was not shown to belong to the Assessee, did not bear any signature, was never corroborated, & the Assessee was not offered cross-examination of the person from whose device it was recovered. The CIT(A) observed that AO failed to produce any independent evidence demonstrating that the Assessee paid any amount outside books.
The Tribunal upheld the detailed reasoning of the CIT(A). It noted that the 153A assessment had already examined the same transaction, & reopening on identical material was clearly a change of opinion. On merits also, additions could not survive because the Excel sheet was third-party digital data with no nexus to the Assessee. Law is well settled that such loose sheets cannot be the basis of additions without corroboration. Tribunal also relied on its own earlier decisions in Kiritkumar Champaklal Shah, Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., & other authorities confirming that uncorroborated Excel files recovered from third parties cannot sustain additions u/s 69B or 69C. It was found that the factual matrix conclusively disproved any payment of alleged on-money by the Assessee.
Accordingly, Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s appeal & confirmed deletion of Rs. 1,40,01,500 comprising additions u/s 69B & 69C.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.
