Smt. Jaya Amitabh Bachchan Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
No Signed Sale Agreement, No Proven Cash Receipt: ITAT Deletes ₹3.94 Crore Additions in Jaya Bachchan’s Case
A proposed Noida property sale led to additions in two years
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has deleted additions of ₹11 lakh and ₹3.83 crore made in the case of Smt. Jaya Amitabh Bachchan in connection with a proposed sale of her Noida property. The first amount was an admitted cheque payment during negotiations. The second was alleged cash consideration inferred principally from a broker’s statement and WhatsApp messages.
The two appeals, ITA No. 283/Mum/2026 and IT(SS)A No. 284/Mum/2026, concerned assessment years 2019–20 and 2020–21, respectively. The Tribunal’s central question was whether the material established that the assessee received or owned the particular amounts in the particular years in which they were added under section 69A.
The document found during the search
A search conducted on 15 January 2021 covered, among others, the premises of property broker Amit Chauhan. Investigators found a document described as an agreement to sell Plot No. B-130, Sector 44, Noida, to Mamta Wadhwa. Dated 25 November 2019, it stated a consideration of ₹4.50 crore, recited payment of ₹1 crore by cheque, and required the balance of ₹3.50 crore by 30 November 2019.
The document presented immediate difficulties. Jaya Bachchan had not signed it, the purchaser’s signature space was blank, and the signature attributed to the assessee’s representative, Rajesh Yadav, was disputed. Mamta Wadhwa also disputed its contents. Most strikingly, the bank inquiry established a payment of ₹11 lakh, not the ₹1 crore cheque payment recited in the document.
The proposed purchasers acknowledged negotiations and the ₹11 lakh cheque. Mamta Wadhwa said that the deal never went through and denied paying cash. Her husband, Manish Wadhwa, likewise denied a cash payment, though he acknowledged authorship of WhatsApp communications with the broker. He described some figures in those messages as estimates and had no explanation at that time for a message which the Assessing Officer read as referring to ₹3.83 crore in cash and ₹11 lakh by cheque.
The broker gave a different account. He referred to an actual consideration of ₹7.50 crore and substantial cash allegedly sent from Delhi to Mumbai through angadias. His descriptions of the cash amount and payment method, however, varied and did not match either the purported agreement or the bank record.
Why the ₹11 lakh addition failed
The Assessing Officer added the ₹11 lakh credited in February 2019 as unexplained money under section 69A. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer’s own bank inquiry identified the cheque and its payer: Eight Petalled Lotus, Mamta Wadhwa’s proprietary concern. Both she and her husband confirmed that it was paid towards the proposed purchase.
Thus, the source and nature of the credit were explained. The parties gave differing accounts about whether the advance was subsequently returned or retained. The Tribunal held that it did not need to settle that later question to decide whether the original receipt was unexplained money. If the amount was retained, its subsequent treatment, including the assessee’s argument concerning section 51, would fall to be considered under the applicable provisions in the relevant year. The section 69A addition for assessment year 2019–20 was deleted.
WhatsApp messages did not establish receipt in FY 2019–20
For assessment year 2020–21, the Assessing Officer added ₹3.83 crore as cash allegedly received in financial year 2019–20. The Tribunal did not disregard the adverse material. In particular, it considered the 28 October 2020 message acknowledged by Manish Wadhwa and his inability to explain it when confronted. But authorship of a message did not, by itself, prove that cash was actually delivered to the assessee.
The dates were decisive. Messages dated 28 October and 2 December 2020 fell after the financial year under appeal had ended on 31 March 2020. They could shed light on discussions between the parties, but without evidence fixing an actual payment date, they could not establish a ₹3.83 crore receipt in FY 2019–20. A message dated 10 December 2019 fell within that year, but referred to ₹3.50 crore being given or transferred to Mumbai, and Manish Wadhwa described the figure as an estimate or calculation.
The assessment did not identify the alleged angadias, dates or instalments of cash delivery, or evidence tracing ₹3.83 crore to the assessee. The Tribunal also considered the failure of the proposed purchasers and the assessee’s representative to use offered opportunities to cross-examine the broker. That non-attendance was relevant, but it could not itself establish the amount, recipient and year of payment.
The property was eventually sold by registered document to Varsha Singh in April 2023. The Tribunal recognised that a later sale does not rule out an earlier advance. It did, however, support the position that the property had not been conveyed to Mamta Wadhwa.
Decision and author’s comment
Assessing the unsigned document, conflicting figures, statements, messages and later sale together, the Tribunal held that receipt of ₹3.83 crore in FY 2019–20 had not been reliably established. It deleted both additions and allowed both appeals on the merits, leaving the assessee’s procedural objections undecided.
Author’s comment: The order draws a useful distinction between evidence of negotiations, evidence raising suspicion of a cash component, and proof of an actual receipt in a specified year. A message mentioning a large figure deserves examination. For an addition under section 69A, however, the authority must still establish that the assessee received or owned the amount brought to tax in the year selected.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
These two appeals, preferred by the assessee, Smt. Jaya Amitabh Bachchan, for Assessment Years 2019–20 and 2020–21, arise from separate assessment orders but concern the same alleged transaction relating to Plot No. B-130, Sector 44, Noida. The additions made in both years rest substantially upon a document described as an agreement to sell, statements recorded during the investigation and WhatsApp communications recovered from the mobile phone of Shri Amit Chauhan, stated to be the broker. Since the material and the principal controversy are common, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The appeal for A.Y. 2019–20 is ITA No. 283/Mum/2026 and the appeal for A.Y. 2020–21 is IT(SS)A No. 284/Mum/2026. The reference to Appeal Nos. 383 and 384 in the written submission appears to be a typographical error.
2. The relevant background is that a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 15 January 2021 in the case of Bloomstrende Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others. The premises of Shri Amit Chauhan, a property broker, were also covered. Among the documents stated to have been found there was an “Agreement to Sell” concerning the assessee’s property at B-130, Sector 44, Noida. The document is dated 25 November 2019 and purports to record a sale by the assessee to Smt. Mamta Wadhwa for a total consideration of ₹4.50 crore. It recites that ₹1 crore had been received by cheque No. 044495 dated 12 August 2019 and that the balance of ₹3.50 crore was payable by 30 November 2019. The document bears a signature in the vendor’s execution space attributed to Shri Rajesh Yadav, stated to have acted for the assessee; it does not bear the assessee’s personal signature, and the vendee’s execution space is blank. The assessee disputes the signature attributed to Shri Yadav and his authority to execute the document. Smt. Wadhwa, when shown the document, also disputed its contents, including the description of her husband, her address and company name, and the recital that ₹1 crore had been paid. The document’s recital of a ₹1 crore cheque is at variance with the bank material obtained by the Assessing Officer, which identifies a credit of ₹11 lakh in the assessee’s account.
3. The statements of Smt. Mamta Wadhwa and her husband, Shri Manish Wadhwa, were recorded on 9 March 2021 by the Investigation Wing. Smt. Wadhwa stated that Shri Amit Chauhan had introduced the property to her husband and that she, her husband and Shri Chauhan had met Shri Amitabh Bachchan and Shri Rajesh Yadav at the latter’s office in Mumbai. She stated that she had handed over a cheque of ₹11 lakh to Shri Amitabh Bachchan towards the proposed purchase. She further stated that the deal did not work out, that the money had not been returned to her, and that she and her husband had not received any agreement to sell. When asked to describe how the transaction had been brokered, she stated that she did not know the total consideration, that no agreement to sell had been made, and that the proposed deal had been delayed and never happened. When confronted with Shri Chauhan’s statement referring to a consideration of ₹7.50 crore and cash payment, she denied any cash payment and maintained that the only amount paid was ₹11 lakh by cheque. She also stated that she had not issued any cheque beyond ₹11 lakh for this particular transaction. Thus, her statement accepts the cheque payment and the existence of negotiations, but disputes the execution of the agreement, the completion of the transaction and the alleged cash component.
4. Shri Manish Wadhwa’s statement contains both an acknowledgment of the proposed transaction and responses concerning the electronic communications relied upon by the Assessing Officer. He stated that the deal concerning the Noida property had been brokered by Shri Chauhan and confirmed that ₹11 lakh had been paid by cheque from his wife’s account. When confronted with the WhatsApp communications, he acknowledged that the chats were between him and Shri Chauhan, but gave different explanations for different messages. In relation to the communication dated 10 December 2019 referring to “3.5” being given or transferred to Mumbai, he described the figure as an estimate or calculation. When confronted with another communication dated 2 December 2020, which the Assessing Officer read as referring to a figure of approximately ₹3.73 crore or ₹3.80 crore for the Noida property, he again described the figure as a future estimate. He also stated during the questioning that he had not paid any cash. However, when shown the separate WhatsApp communication dated 28 October 2020, which the Assessing Officer construed as giving a bifurcation of ₹3.83 crore in cash and ₹11 lakh by cheque for the Noida property, Shri Wadhwa acknowledged that the message was his but stated that he had no explanation for it at that time. His responses, therefore, are not uniform: he expressly denied cash payment and described some figures as estimates, but acknowledged authorship of the message upon which the Assessing Officer principally relied for the figure of ₹3.83 crore.
5. Shri Amit Chauhan’s statement also refers to the transaction, but the figures and manner of payment attributed to him differ from those appearing in the purported agreement and from the account given by the proposed purchasers. When confronted with the agreement, he stated that the actual sale consideration was ₹7.50 crore and not ₹4.50 crore, and that ₹3.50 crore had been paid in cash; he further stated that the ₹1 crore shown in the agreement as paid by cheque had, in fact, been paid in cash. In response to another question concerning the transaction, he referred to payment of ₹11 lakh by cheque to Shri Amitabh Bachchan in Mumbai, in the presence of Shri Rajesh Yadav, and stated that cash of approximately ₹3 crore to ₹3.50 crore had been sent from Delhi to Mumbai through angadias. His account thus attributes a substantial cash component to the proposed deal, but the total consideration and payment particulars do not correspond consistently with the agreement, the bank evidence or the statements of Smt. Wadhwa and Shri Manish Wadhwa. The assessment order records that Smt. Wadhwa and Shri Manish Wadhwa had sought to cross-examine Shri Chauhan; summons dated 28 June 2021 were issued fixing 2 July 2021 for that purpose, but neither attended. The assessment order further records that an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Chauhan was also afforded to Shri Rajesh Yadav, who did not avail himself of it. These circumstances form part of the evidentiary record and are noticed here without expressing any conclusion on their effect.
6. The Assessing Officer also relied upon the WhatsApp communications between Shri Manish Wadhwa and Shri Chauhan. The communications referred to in the assessment order include the message of 10 December 2019 concerning an amount of ₹3.50 crore to be transferred to Mumbai; the message dated 2 December 2020 containing figures which the Assessing Officer read as approximately ₹3.73 crore or ₹3.80 crore for the property; and the message dated 28 October 2020, which the Assessing Officer read as setting out ₹3.83 crore in cash and ₹11 lakh by cheque. The communication of 10 December 2019 post-dates the 30 November 2019 deadline mentioned in the purported agreement for payment of the balance consideration. Shri Wadhwa described the figures in the first two communications as estimates or future calculations. In relation to the 28 October 2020 communication, he acknowledged that the message was his but did not then explain it. The Assessing Officer treated that message as corroborating the alleged cash payment and relied upon it, together with Shri Chauhan’s statement, to compute the alleged cash consideration at ₹3.83 crore. The material thus includes both the Assessing Officer’s inference of actual payment and the explanations or denials given by the persons whose statements and messages were relied upon.
7. For A.Y. 2019–20, the Assessing Officer obtained information from Bank of India and found a credit of ₹11 lakh in the assessee’s account on 27 February 2019. The bank identified the cheque as cheque No. 0267 drawn by Eight Petalled Lotus, the proprietary concern of Smt. Mamta Wadhwa. This credit preceded the purported agreement dated 25 November 2019 by about nine months; the agreement, in turn, refers to a different payment of ₹1 crore by cheque dated 12 August 2019. The Assessing Officer treated the ₹11 lakh credit as unexplained money under section 69A and added it to the assessee’s returned income. The assessee’s case in appeal is that the cheque was the advance paid during negotiations for the proposed transfer, that its source was identified, and that it was disclosed in her records and return. For A.Y. 2020–21, the Assessing Officer treated ₹3.83 crore as cash consideration allegedly received during the relevant previous year and added it under section 69A. The assessment order records that the ₹11 lakh cheque had already been considered in A.Y. 2019–20 and that the addition for the succeeding year was confined to the alleged cash component. The amounts brought to tax—₹11 lakh and ₹3.83 crore, aggregating to ₹3.94 crore—do not correspond to the agreement’s stated consideration of ₹4.50 crore or to the total consideration of ₹7.50 crore stated by Shri Chauhan.
8. The assessee’s appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were dismissed by orders dated 12 December 2025. For A.Y. 2019–20, the learned CIT(A) treated the cheque as part of the alleged larger transaction and sustained the addition of ₹11 lakh under section 69A. The appellate order records the assessee’s explanation that the amount was an advance in the course of negotiations and refers to its having been returned in April 2023. The assessee’s present submission, however, states that the amount was retained as an advance pending adjustment against the cost of acquisition when the property was ultimately sold; Smt. Wadhwa’s statement is that the amount had not been returned to her. For A.Y. 2020–21, the learned CIT(A) held that the purported agreement, the statements and the WhatsApp material established the alleged cash receipt, and considered the later registered sale to Smt. Varsha Singh irrelevant to the transaction alleged to have taken place with Smt. Wadhwa. The assessee has challenged both appellate orders, maintaining that the property was never sold to Smt. Wadhwa and relying on the subsequent registered sale to Smt. Varsha Singh in April 2023.
9. Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the agreement does not establish a concluded sale or the receipt of the consideration recited in it: the assessee did not sign it; the vendee did not sign it; the signature attributed to the assessee’s representative is disputed; and the agreement’s ₹1 crore cheque recital is inconsistent with the only bank credit identified, namely ₹11 lakh. It was submitted that Smt. Wadhwa accepted only the ₹11 lakh cheque and denied any cash payment, while Shri Manish Wadhwa also stated that no cash had been paid and described certain amounts in the chats as estimates. The learned counsel further submitted that the ₹11 lakh was an advance received in negotiations and its treatment was governed by section 51 when the property was later transferred; he also relied on the property’s subsequent sale to Smt. Varsha Singh. The learned counsel contended that the learned CIT(A) had not properly dealt with the statements, the discrepancies in the agreement and payment figures, the subsequent sale or the assessee’s plea under section 51. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders below, relying on Shri Chauhan’s statement, the WhatsApp message dated 28 October 2020 and the fact that the buyer and her husband did not attend the offered cross-examination. The assessee has also raised objections concerning the notices under sections 143(2) and 153C, the opportunity and material furnished during assessment, and the invocation of section 69A. The merits issue is whether the evidence establishes, separately for each assessment year, that the assessee received or owned the amount brought to tax; the statements, agreement and electronic material must accordingly be considered together, including the portions that support and those that contradict the respective accounts.
10. We have considered the material on record and the rival submissions. Both additions have been made under section 69A of the Act. The question is whether the assessee was found to be the owner of the respective sums in the relevant previous years and whether their nature and source remained unexplained. The fact that negotiations for the Noida property took place is not in dispute. What remains to be determined is whether those negotiations resulted in an agreement with Smt. Mamta Wadhwa and, in particular, whether the assessee received ₹3.83 crore in cash during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2020–21.
11. The purported agreement does not, by itself, establish a concluded transaction or the payments attributed to it. The assessee did not sign it personally; the vendee’s signature space is blank; and the signature appearing in the vendor’s space, attributed to Shri Rajesh Yadav, is disputed. The record does not establish that the agreement was mutually executed or otherwise reliably accepted by the Wadhwas. Its payment recital is also inconsistent with the bank material: the agreement refers to ₹1 crore paid by cheque, whereas the bank records identify a credit of ₹11 lakh from Eight Petalled Lotus. The agreement records total consideration of ₹4.50 crore, while Shri Chauhan referred to ₹7.50 crore and gave varying accounts of the cash component. The Assessing Officer, in turn, assessed ₹11 lakh in A.Y. 2019–20 and ₹3.83 crore in A.Y. 2020–21, aggregating to ₹3.94 crore. These discrepancies concern the consideration and the manner of payment themselves. The agreement is relevant material, but it does not, without reliable corroboration, establish the precise amounts assessed.
12. The addition of ₹11 lakh for A.Y. 2019–20 cannot be sustained under section 69A. The Assessing Officer’s own inquiry established that the amount was received by cheque No. 0267 from Eight Petalled Lotus, the proprietary concern of Smt. Wadhwa. She accepted payment of ₹11 lakh as an advance towards the proposed purchase, and Shri Manish Wadhwa confirmed that the cheque was paid from his wife’s account. The payer, banking source and nature of the credit as an advance are thus established. The assessee’s case is that the advance was disclosed and retained for adjustment against the cost of acquisition when the property was later transferred. Section 51 provides for the treatment, in computing the cost of acquisition, of advance money received and retained during negotiations for transfer of a capital asset. The appellate order and the statements contain differing accounts as to whether the amount was later returned or retained; that question need not be determined in deciding whether the original cheque credit was unexplained. Its source and nature are established, and its appropriate subsequent treatment, if any, falls to be considered under the applicable provisions in the relevant year. The addition under section 69A is therefore deleted.
13. The addition of ₹3.83 crore for A.Y. 2020–21 rests principally on Shri Chauhan’s statement and the WhatsApp communications between him and Shri Manish Wadhwa. We have not overlooked the communication dated 28 October 2020. Shri Wadhwa acknowledged that it was his message but, when confronted with the Assessing Officer’s reading of it as showing ₹3.83 crore in cash and ₹11 lakh by cheque, stated that he had no explanation for the message at that time. This is an adverse circumstance and has been weighed. His acknowledgment establishes authorship of the message and his failure then to explain it; it does not, by itself, establish that the cash recorded in it was actually paid to the assessee, or that it was paid during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2020–21. Shri Wadhwa also expressly stated that he had not paid cash and described other figures in the communications as estimates or future calculations. Smt. Wadhwa consistently stated that only ₹11 lakh was paid and denied any cash payment.
14. The timing of the electronic material is material. The previous year relevant to A.Y. 2020–21 ended on 31 March 2020. The communications dated 28 October 2020 and 2 December 2020 fall in the following previous year. Though they may bear upon the parties’ later discussions or understanding of the proposed transaction, they do not, without evidence establishing when the cash was actually paid, fix receipt of ₹3.83 crore in the previous year under appeal. The communication dated 10 December 2019 falls within the relevant previous year, but it post-dates the 30 November 2019 deadline stated in the purported agreement for payment of the balance consideration and refers to ₹3.50 crore being given or transferred to Mumbai. Shri Wadhwa described the figure as an estimate or calculation. The assessment order does not identify the date or dates of actual cash delivery during FY 2019–20.
15. Shri Chauhan’s statement also attributes a substantial cash component to the proposed transaction, and we have considered it with the electronic material. When confronted with the agreement, he referred to a total consideration of ₹7.50 crore, ₹3.50 crore in cash, and stated that the ₹1 crore shown in the agreement as paid by cheque had instead been paid in cash. In another answer, he referred to an ₹11 lakh cheque and cash of approximately ₹3 crore to ₹3.50 crore, allegedly sent from Delhi to Mumbai through angadias. These accounts do not correspond consistently with the agreement, the bank evidence or the precise ₹3.83 crore assessed by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order does not identify the angadias, the dates or instalments of the alleged cash delivery, or other material tracing the cash to the assessee. The order also treats the non-attendance of Smt. Wadhwa and Shri Manish Wadhwa at the offered cross-examination as establishing the correctness of Shri Chauhan’s account. Their failure to attend is a relevant circumstance and weighs against their denials. The assessment order also records that the assessee’s representative did not avail himself of the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Chauhan. These circumstances have been taken into account; nevertheless, non-attendance does not, by itself, establish the amount, recipient or year of the alleged payment. The statement must still be assessed with the other material, and the inconsistencies and absence of particulars do not establish that ₹3.83 crore was delivered to the assessee during FY 2019–20.
16. The registered sale of the property to Smt. Varsha Singh in April 2023 also forms part of the record. We do not treat that subsequent sale, standing alone, as proof that no money could have been paid during earlier negotiations; a proposed transaction may fail even after a payment or advance. It does, however, support the assessee’s case that the property was not conveyed to Smt. Wadhwa and remained available for transfer to another purchaser. Considered with the absence of a mutually executed or otherwise reliably established agreement with the Wadhwas, the discrepancy between the agreement’s ₹1 crore cheque recital and the established ₹11 lakh credit, the statements of the proposed purchasers, and the inconsistent figures and timing in Shri Chauhan’s account and the electronic material, the later sale reinforces the conclusion that the alleged receipt of ₹3.83 crore in FY 2019–20 has not been established.
17. On an overall appraisal, the source and nature of the ₹11 lakh cheque credit are established, and the amount cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 69A. As regards A.Y. 2020–21, the material does not establish with sufficient reliability that the assessee received or owned ₹3.83 crore in cash during the relevant previous year. The WhatsApp message and Shri Chauhan’s statement are relevant and have been weighed, but they do not establish the date of actual payment or reliably connect the precise amount assessed to receipt by the assessee in FY 2019–20. The additions of ₹11 lakh for A.Y. 2019–20 and ₹3.83 crore for A.Y. 2020–21 are accordingly deleted.
18. In view of our decision on the merits, it is unnecessary to adjudicate the objections concerning notices under sections 143(2) and 153C or the other procedural grounds. Those grounds are left open and treated as academic; no finding on their merits is expressed. The appeals are allowed.
19. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced on 28th September, 2026.
