Anuradha Chakraborti Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
An Excel Entry Is Not Proof of Cash Payment: ₹1.11 Crore Omaxe Addition Deleted
Revenue Had to Prove the Alleged Cash Exchange
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted an addition of ₹1.11 crore under Section 69, made on the allegation that the assessee had paid cash towards the purchase of immovable property from the Omaxe Group.
The allegation originated from an Excel file found during a search on the seller group. The assessee denied making any cash payment. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not supported its allegation with evidence establishing an actual cash exchange between the parties.
The absence of an opportunity for cross-examination further weakened the assessment. Following earlier decisions involving similar Omaxe-related allegations, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
Search on the Builder Led to Reopening of the Buyer’s Assessment
A search and seizure action was conducted on the Omaxe Group on 14 March 2022. According to the Department, material discovered during that search indicated receipt of on-money from customers purchasing units in various projects.
The assessee’s name appeared in an Excel file allegedly recording such cash receipts. The Department treated the entry as indicating that she had paid ₹111 lakh in cash to the group for purchasing immovable property.
Based on this information, her assessment for Assessment Year 2020-21 was reopened. Although she disputed the allegation, the AO rejected her explanation and assessed the amount as unexplained investment under Section 69.
The reassessment order was passed on 26 March 2025. The CIT(A), NFAC upheld the addition by an order dated 29 January 2026, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
Third-Party Information Required Evidentiary Support
The central issue was whether the Excel entry and the material arising from the seller’s search sufficiently established that the assessee had made the alleged cash payment.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s allegation was not backed by evidence of cash exchange between the parties. It also recorded that the assessee had consistently denied making any cash payment to the Omaxe Group.
In these circumstances, the Revenue had to substantiate the allegation with cogent evidence. The Tribunal concluded that this burden had not been discharged.
The decision therefore turned on the insufficiency of the evidence supporting the alleged investment, rather than merely on the fact that the information had originated in proceedings against another person.
Earlier Omaxe Decision Rejected Unsupported Multiplication
The Tribunal relied upon Anupama Gupta v. ITO, ITA No. 972/Chd/2025, dated 8 December 2025.
In that case, an Excel sheet found during the Omaxe search contained a figure of ₹8,000. The AO multiplied it by 100 and treated it as a cash payment of ₹8 lakh, without bringing concrete evidence on record to justify that interpretation.
The earlier Bench held that there was no document supporting the multiplication. The addition rested on presumption or suspicion, which could not substitute for evidence.
That numerical conversion belonged to the Anupama Gupta case. The present order does not record that the assessee’s ₹1.11 crore addition arose from an identical multiplication exercise. Its relevance was the broader principle that unsupported interpretation of an Excel entry cannot establish a taxable cash payment.
Another Decision Emphasised Corroboration and Cross-Examination
The Tribunal also followed Amarjot Singh Sohi-HUF, ITA No. 1065/CHANDI/2025, dated 7 January 2026.
In that matter, the alleged cash payment was also based on material from the seller group’s search and statements recorded during those proceedings.
The assessee had produced documentary material supporting payments through banking channels, including bank statements, a payment confirmation and an affidavit denying cash payment. No opportunity to cross-examine had been provided.
The earlier Bench held that the assessee could not be required to prove a negative, while the AO’s allegation remained unsubstantiated. It rejected the addition founded on presumptions and assumptions.
Those detailed payment documents were discussed in the earlier decision reproduced in the present order. They should not automatically be attributed to Anuradha Chakraborti’s own record.
Addition Deleted in the Present Appeal
Applying the same reasoning, the Tribunal found that similar circumstances existed in the assessee’s case.
She denied making cash payments, the Revenue had not established an actual cash exchange, and no opportunity for cross-examination had been provided.
The Tribunal consequently directed deletion of the entire ₹1.11 crore addition. No other ground was urged, and the appeal was allowed.
There was no remand for further investigation or fresh adjudication in the operative order.
Author’s Comments
The ruling reinforces an essential distinction between information suggesting an undisclosed transaction and evidence establishing that transaction. A buyer’s name appearing in a seller’s Excel file may prompt inquiry, but the allegation must still be tested and substantiated before an addition is sustained.
The cross-examination finding is also material. Where adverse third-party material is relied upon, the taxpayer must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegation.
However, the decision should not be presented as declaring every Excel file or third-party record inadmissible. The Tribunal’s conclusion was that the particular allegation lacked proof of cash exchange and the Revenue had failed to discharge its burden.
For practitioners, the useful approach is to examine the entry’s meaning, supporting evidence and opportunity to rebut it separately. A large figure does not become a proved investment merely because it appears in a seized spreadsheet.
Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
- Anupama Gupta v. ITO(ITAT Chandigarh), ITA No. 972/Chd/2025, order dated 08.12.2025 — The Tribunal rejected an addition based on multiplying an Excel entry by 100 without supporting evidence. No exact verified TaxGuru case URL is inserted.
- Amarjot Singh Sohi-HUF(ITAT Chandigarh), ITA No. 1065/CHANDI/2025, order dated 07.01.2026 — Alleged on-money addition deleted where actual cash payment was unproved and cross-examination was denied.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of an order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 29.01.2026 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 of the Act on 26.03.2025. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.111 Lacs u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
2. From assessment records, it emerges that the assessee’ case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information that during search and seizure action on Omaxe Group on 14-03-2022, the evidences of payment of on-money in property deal was found. On the basis of the same, it was alleged that the assessee made cash transactions with that group for Rs.111 Lacs which was found to be recorded in an excel file allegedly containing details of cash received from customers towards sale of units in various projects of Omaxe group. The assessee was also listed in the said file and the assessee was shown to have paid money of Rs.111 Lacs to that group on purchase of immovable property. The assessee refuted the allegation of Ld. AO. However, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee and added the amount of Rs.111 Lacs in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
3. We find that identical issue has been decided by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anupama Gupta vs. ITO (ITA No.972/Chd/2025 dated 08-12-2025) wherein the bench deleted similar addition by observing as under:-
7. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the findings given by the authorities below are based on an Excel sheet found during the search operation of the Omaxe Group. In fact, even in the Excel sheet, the figure written is only Rs. 8000. The Assessing Officer has multiplied it by 100 and made it Rs. 800000/- as payment in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings given by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are without any concrete evidence against the Assessee. He further argued that it is only the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the figure of Rs. 8000 may be read as Rs. 800000/-and the presumption of the Assessing Officer have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any evidence bringing on record. The AR argued that the addition made on presumption should not be sustained.
8. We have considered the findings given by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the AO has made the addition just on the basis of an Excel sheet entry of Rs. 8000/- by multiplying it with 100 without bringing on record any concrete evidence for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the presumption of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the addition. We find that there is no document available with the Assessing Officer for prompting him to multiply the figure of Rs.8000/- by 100 making it Rs. 800000/-. It is just a presumption or suspicion.
9. We are of this considered view that in any matter whatsoever a strong, a suspicion made without bringing on record any concrete evidence, no addition can be made / sustained. Therefore, we are not inclined to sustain the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Assessee’s appeal on this issue is accordingly allowed.
4. Similar view has subsequently been expressed in the case of M/s Amarjot Singh Sohi-HUF (ITA No.1065/CHANDI/2025 dated 07-01 2026) as under:-
3. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has, all along, denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. Thewhole 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 theassessee. 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 andcircumstances 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.
5. We find that similar facts exist in the present appeal before us. The assessee has denied making any cash payment to the Omaxe group. The allegation of Ld. AO is not backed by evidence of cash exchange between the parties. No opportunity of cross-examination has ever been provided to the assessee. In our considered opinion, the onus was on revenue to prove its allegation and this onus has not been discharged. Therefore, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. We order so. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.
6. The appeal stand allowed.
Order pronounced on 06.10.2026
