Suneeta Ramesh Korgaonkar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The Pune ITAT partly allowed the assessee’s appeal against the CIT(A), NFAC order for AY 2020-21, arising from a reassessment order dated 29.03.2025 under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a retired salaried employee, had filed her return declaring total income of ₹4,98,980. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 148 based on information available on the Income Tax Department’s Insight Portal concerning a search under Section 132 in the Bhoomi Group. The assessee had purchased a flat jointly with her husband and son from M/s. Midas and Bhoomi Associates, and the AO alleged that ₹16,60,000 was paid as on-money.
During reassessment, the assessee denied making any on-money payment and requested statements, seized documents and cross-examination. She furnished bank statements, the purchase deed and other details. The Tribunal noted that an addition concerning cash receipt had been made in the seller’s case for AY 2022-23, whereas the alleged cash payment was attributed to the assessee for AY 2020-21. The Tribunal observed that the AO therefore appeared uncertain about the actual date of the alleged payment.
The Tribunal further found that the scanned document relied upon by the AO was not original evidence, did not contain the assessee’s name, did not mention “cash”, and did not establish that it related to the flat purchased by the assessee. It described the document as a “dumb document”. The chart relied upon in the assessment order and reasons was also not the original evidence. The Tribunal noted that no original documents were produced before it and that the statement of Mr. Neerav Mehta did not allege any cash payment by the assessee. Accordingly, the ₹5,33,000 addition under Section 69 was held baseless and unsupported by evidence and was directed to be deleted.
