Case Law Details
Ranjana Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra)
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC for AY 2021-22. The Tribunal first condoned a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal after accepting that the delay resulted from the assessee’s serious illness, advanced age, continuous medical treatment, and inability to attend legal and administrative matters.
The assessment arose after a search under Section 132 in the case of the Omaxe Group, during which a hard disk containing “MAIN REPORT” Excel files allegedly recorded unaccounted transactions. Based on entries in the Excel sheet, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 148 and alleged that the assessee had made an unaccounted cash payment of ₹16,28,700 for a project at Lucknow. As the assessee did not explain the alleged cash payment to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, an addition of ₹16,28,700 was made under Section 69. The CIT(A) upheld the addition despite the assessee’s contention that adequate opportunity of hearing and cross-examination had not been provided.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the addition rested entirely on an unauthenticated third-party Excel sheet recovered during the search of the Omaxe Group, without any independent corroborative evidence connecting the assessee with any actual cash payment. It was argued that the Excel sheet was neither authored nor signed by the assessee, did not constitute the assessee’s books of account, and was unsupported by any signed receipt or acknowledgment. The assessee further submitted that no incriminating material had been recovered from her possession, no evidence of withdrawal or movement of cash had been produced, and Omaxe Group had confirmed that only ₹9,89,450 was received through banking channels and no cash payment was received. The assessee also relied on her sworn affidavit denying any cash payment and argued that reliance on statements of Omaxe Group employees without permitting cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned addition had been sustained solely on the basis of an unauthenticated third-party Excel sheet allegedly found during the search proceedings, without any independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to an actual cash payment. It further noted that the Assessing Officer had not independently verified the material after providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the Omaxe Group or the employees whose statements had been relied upon. The Tribunal found the issue to be covered by the Chandigarh Bench decision in M/s. Amarjot Singh Sohi – HUF, wherein it had been held that, after the assessee furnished documentary evidence, bank records, confirmation from the seller, and an affidavit denying cash payment, the burden shifted to the Assessing Officer to establish the alleged cash transaction with cogent evidence and that additions could not be sustained on presumptions and assumptions.
Respectfully following that decision and considering the facts of the present case, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition made under Section 69. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 24.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.
2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR brought to our notice that there is delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal. He submitted that the delay has occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, mainly on account of serious illness of assessee coupled with advanced age. He submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 78 years and was suffering from serious health problems. He submitted that the assessee was under continuous medical treatment from 21.12.2025 to 20.02.2026, as certified by the treating doctor, and was advised complete rest. He further submitted that during the said period, the assessee was physically weak and mentally disturbed and was not in a position to attend to any legal, professional, or administrative work and due to that, the assessee could not Consult her counsel, collect documents, or arrange necessary papers for filing the appeal within time. He submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred solely due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and accordingly, prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the submissions of the assessee.
4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2021-22 on 27.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs.6,60,640/- declaring only income from other sources (interest). A Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was conducted at various office and residential premises in the case of Omaxe Group on 14.03.2022 by the Directorate of Investigation of the Income Tax Department. During search and seizure action in the case of Omaxe Group, a Hard Disk was seized from 14, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi (office of Omaxe Limited) wherein comprehensive data of the unaccounted transactions undertaken by the Omaxe Group entities were found to be recorded in the ‘MAIN REPORT’ Excel Files. The details of the same are given at page 2 of the assessment order wherein it was noticed that name of the assessee appeared and the assessee has provided Rs.16,28,700/- in unaccounted cash for project ‘Metro City Commercial 2’ at Lucknow. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2024 was issued. In compliance to the aforesaid notice, assessee has not filed her return of income u/s 148 of the Act. Further, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued directing the assessee to explain the source of the cash payment of Rs.16,28,700/-. In response, assessee filed a copy of bank statement but did not comment on the issue of unaccounted cash payment. Thus, AO observed that assessee has not offered any explanation to the said cash payment.
6. Further, AO, after verifying all the documents available with him, details of which are given at page 3 of his order, observed that the assessee, having PAN AGJPG3305M paid16,28,700/- in unaccounted cash to Omaxe Group during the year under consideration in Metro City Commercial 2 project, Lucknow.
7. AO further analyzed the provisions of section 69 of the Act and issued a show cause notice dated02.2025 to the assessee asking her as to why an addition of Rs.16,28,700/- should not be made to her Income for the year under consideration u/s 69 of the Act. In response to the above, the Assessee objected to the proposed addition and submitted that various details and documents sought by her were not made available to her. In this regard, AO noted that all the documents and information available with this office were provided to the assessee along with notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2024. Further from the reply of the assessee, AO observed that the assessee had not denied that she purchased Unit No. MCCL/BLOCK-2A/121A in Metro City Commercial 2, Lucknow for which the above payment of Rs.16,28,700/- was made in unaccounted cash to Omaxe Group and the submissions of the assessee that she did not purchase any immovable property during the year under consideration is not relevant here as it is not mandatory that the above mentioned cash payment took place in the same year in which the immovable properly was purchased. He observed that in fact, it is a salient feature of Real Estate Sector wherein payments are made to the seller of the immovable property in advance and in installments. Accordingly, he observed that the assessee failed to prove the source of above cash payments of Rs.16,28,700/- made during the year under consideration for investment in immovable property and the same is squarely covered u/s 69 of the Act and accordingly, an addition of Rs.16,28,700/- is made to the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.
8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised various grounds, one of the grounds is not providing opportunity of being heard and cross examination not allowed to the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) after going through the detailed submissions of the assessee, sustained the addition.
9. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed an appeal before me.
10. The only issue involved is the sustenance of addition of Rs,16,28,700/-under section 69 of the Act.
11. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned addition was sustained solely on the basis of an unauthenticated third-party Excel sheet allegedly found during search proceedings at the premises of Omaxe Group, without any independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to any actual cash payment. Further he submitted that the said Excel sheet does not bear the signature of the assessee; is not authored by the assessee; does not constitute books of account of the assessee; is not supported by any signed receipt or acknowledgment, and therefore cannot, in isolation, form the sole basis of addition under Section 69 of the Act.
12. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410), loose sheets or uncorroborated entries do not constitute books of account and cannot be the sole basis for fastening liability. He further submitted that the impugned addition is contrary to settled judicial principles laid down in various decisions wherein it has been held that addition cannot be sustained solely on third-party loose papers without independent corroboration. He submitted that no incriminating material whatsoever was found from the possession or control of the assessee, and no evidence of withdrawal, movement or actual payment of cash has been brought on record by the Revenue.
13. Further he submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in disregarding the written confirmation issued by Omaxe Group categorically stating that no cash payment was received from the assessee and that only Rs.9,89,450/- was received through regular banking channels. He submitted that reliance placed upon statements recorded of employees of Omaxe Group, without granting the assessee an effective opportunity to cross-examine such persons, is in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to judicial precedents including: (i) Kunal Ragahubir Bhandari vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) and (ii) DCIT vs. Yograj Arora (ITAT Delhi).
14. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the sworn Affidavit filed by the assessee affirming that no cash payment was ever made, and such Affidavit has neither been rebutted nor disproved by the Revenue. Further, ld. AR submitted that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of M/s. Amarjot Singh Sohi – HUF vs. ITO in ITA No.1065/CHAN/2025 for AY 2020-21 order dated 07.01.2026 and pleaded to delete the addition.
15. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
16. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. I observed that the impugned addition was sustained solely on the basis of an unauthenticated third-party Excel sheet allegedly found during search proceedings at the premises of Omaxe Group, without any independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to any actual cash payment. Further we observed that the said Excel sheet found at the place of search or accepted by the Omaxe group. However, it is not independently verified by the AO after giving opportunity of cross examination to the assessee with the Omaxe group or of such persons of employees of Omaxe Group whose statements were recorded and relied. Further I observed that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of M/s. Amarjot Singh Sohi – HUF (supra) and relevant findings of the said decision are as under :-
“2. It emerges that pursuant to receipt of certain information that the assessee paid cash of Rs.8 Lacs to M/s Omaxe Ltd. in lieu of purchase of shop besides making payment through banking channels, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 15-03-2024. The said information stem from search action by the department on Omaxe group and statement recorded from officers of that concern u/s 132(4) of the Act. It transpired that the assessee purchased a shop from Omaxe group in its project situated at Mullanpur. In reply to show-cause notices of Ld. AO, the assessee contended that all the payments were made through banking channels and denied having made any cash payment in the said transaction. The details of payments as made by the assessee were also furnished to Ld. AO. However, considering the statement of officers of M/s Omaxe Ltd u/s 132(4) regarding data pertaining to cash payment gathered from the electronic device wherein the details of assessee making cash payment was mentioned, the assessee’s submissions were rejected by Ld. AO. As per electronic data, the assessee allegedly made payment of Rs.8 Lacs. In the electronic data, the amounts mentioned in the excel sheet was suppressed by factor of “100”. Considering the factual matrix, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.8 Lacs u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and framed the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.
3. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has, all along, denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. The whole case of Ld. AO stem from search action on the seller group coupled with statement of officers recorded therein. Apparently, one excel sheet has been found which allegedly contain details of cash payment on sale transaction. In the excel sheet, the assessee is shown to have made payment of Rs.8 Lacs on the impugned transaction. However, the assessee has denied the same and contended that all the payments were made pursuant to written agreement and the payments were through banking channels only. The details of such payment have duly been furnished to Ld. AO. No opportunity of cross-examination has ever been provided to the assessee which is in violation of principle of natural justice. In my considered opinion, the onus was on Ld. AO to prove with cogent evidence that cash was exchanged in the transaction. The assessee has furnished all the documentary evidences as available with him to support the contention that all the payments were made through banking channels only. The confirmation of payment has duly been furnished by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. which is kept on Page No.30 of the paper book. The payments are duly supported by bank statements and the same are reflecting in Form No.26AS of the assessee. The assessee has filed affidavit to the effect that no cash has even been paid to M/s Omaxe Ltd. The assessee could not be asked to prove the negative. In my opinion, the assessee has duly discharged its onus whereas the allegations of Ld. AO remain unsubstantiated. It is trite law that no addition could be made on mere presumptions and assumptions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned addition is not sustainable. I order so. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee.
4. The appeal stand allowed.”
17. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision and overall facts of the case, I am inclined to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition.
18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of June, 2026.
Author Bio
