Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

On-Money Addition Reduced: Photocopy of Agreement Lacks Evidentiary Value for Taxation

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 9661
Case Name
Chameli Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2012-13
Advertisement

Chameli Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

On-money allegation based only on photocopy of agreement – ITAT partly deletes addition, sustains only advance paid in year

Assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 based on a photocopy of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 02.03.2012, alleging that she purchased a flat for ₹30,25,000, including ₹5,00,000 cash &  balance ₹25,25,000 within two months. However, the registered sale deed dated 06.07.2012 showed the sale price as ₹16,00,000, out of which ₹4,75,000 was paid in cash on 10.03.2012 &  the balance ₹11,25,000 was paid by cheques in June–July 2012 (falling in next AY).

AO treated the difference of ₹14,25,000 as on-money, &  also held that the cash advance of ₹5,00,000 (as per photocopy) was unexplained. Total addition u/s 69A of ₹19,00,000 was made, along with ₹60,000 disallowed u/s 80C, &   ₹2,04,256 treated as unexplained investment in FDRs.

CIT(A) upheld all additions.

Before ITAT, Assessee argued that:

  • The photocopy of agreement had no evidentiary value,
  • The registered deed did not even mention any prior agreement,
  • Most payments (₹11.25 lakh) were made in next year, so cannot be taxed in AY 2012-13,
  • Source of cash advance of ₹4.75 lakh was claimed from earlier bank withdrawal, but continuity was not proved.

Tribunal held:

  • A photocopy of agreement cannot be relied upon without examining original or witnesses.
  • Registered sale deed is the primary document, & it does not mention any agreement to sell.
  • Therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of unverified agreement.
  • ₹11,25,000 was paid in next year, hence cannot be taxed in AY 2012-13.
  • However, assessee failed to prove source of ₹4,75,000 cash paid on 10.03.2012 as per registered deed.

Accordingly:

  • Addition of ₹19,00,000 restricted to ₹4,75,000 only.
  • Balance ₹14,25,000 deleted.

Other Additions:

  • ₹60,000 u/s 80C – Deleted, as FDR maturity was reinvested (supported by HDFC bank letter).
  • ₹2,04,256 FDR investment – Deleted, supported by SBI certificates showing reinvestment of tax-saving bonds.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,286

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.