Draft reply to the Income Tax Notice wherein the reopening of the assessment is being challenged based on a photocopy of the agreement between seller and buyer . only photocopy of the agreement bears no value in the eyes of law in the absence of Original agreement .
Respected Sir,
Kindly find full reply to the show cause notice proposing variation as stated in the notice and its denial by the assessee due to the following reasons.
About Agreement
That the alleged agreement is without any date as to when it was executed amongst the parties. It does not bear any date either at the beginning or at the end. The only date mentioned in the said document is the date of purchase of the stamp paper, i.e. XXXXX Thus, the agreement appears to be thoroughly fabricated and unreliable.
The reopening of assessment is time barred .
That at Page No. 7 of the order passed under section 148A(d), at Para No. 6, it has been stated that the present case is covered under section 149(1)(a) of the Act. However, it is evident that the period of three years has already elapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year 2020-21, the end of which was 31.03.2021 and three years ended on 31.3.2024
The notice under section 148 has been issued on 09.04.2024, which is clearly beyond the time limit of three years as prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the Act.
Hence, the initiation of proceedings is bad in law, and the proviso to section 149(1)(b) is applicable to the facts of the present case because the case is for the relevant assessment year which is 2020-21 which begins on or before Ist day of April 2021 and as per provisio the time limit expires on 31.3.2024.
Approval obtained from the specified authority is not as per law
That the order passed under section 148A(d) has been issued after obtaining approval from the specified authority prescribed under section 151(i) of the Act.
In the present case, as stated above the issue of notice is beyond the time limit. Morever the approval taken u/s 151(i) of the Act is also not in accordance with law as more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year 2020-21. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 151(ii); approval was required to be obtained from the Specified Authority, i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax /Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the approval has been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, which is not in accordance with law and is in clear violation of section 151 of the Income-tax Act.
Accordingly, the approval so obtained is invalid, and consequently, the entire proceedings initiated under section 148 are liable to be quashed and prayer is made to quash the proceedings.
As the alleged income of the assessee (not accepted by the assessee ) not disclosed to the department by the Ld JAO ward No. @@@@@@@@ is more than 50 lakhs including banking and cash transactions then reopening was required u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act not u/s 149(1)(a) of the Act . The specified authority should be u/s 151(ii) of the Act not u/s 151(i) of the Act .
On the validity of reopening proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell.
The present reassessment proceedings have been initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell, purportedly relating to the assessee and others. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that no agreement to sell is available with the assessee, no original agreement is available with the Income-tax Department, and the reopening has been triggered solely on the strength of a photocopy, without any corroborative evidence or independent inquiry as required under the Act.
The assessee respectfully submits that such reopening is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed, as it fails to satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. It is settled law that before invoking section 147, the Assessing Officer must possess “reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on the basis of information sent by the Investigation Wing of the department. The expression “reason to believe” must be based on tangible, credible and reliable material, cannot be based on mere suspicion, surmises, or unverified documents, and must have a live nexus between the material and the formation of belief. Jurisdiction under section 147 is condition precedent, and failure to satisfy it renders the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Deep enquiry is required by way of issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act or making enquiries u/s 148A(a) of the Act but no such enquiries were made by the Ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer .
Photocopy of an Agreement – No Evidentiary Value per se
A photocopy of a document is only secondary evidence. In the absence of the original document and any proof of execution, authentication, or admission by the assessee, such photocopy cannot be relied upon as conclusive or even prima facie evidence for reopening. The Income-tax Act does not operate in isolation from basic principles of evidence. While strict rules of the Evidence Act may not apply, fundamental principles of reliability and authenticity unquestionably apply. A loose paper or photocopy, without corroboration, has no evidentiary value, cannot form the sole basis for reopening, and at best raises a doubt, which is insufficient for section 147.
No Original Available with Either Party.
In the present case, neither the assessee nor the Income-tax Department is in possession of the original agreement to sell. There is no proof of signatures, no proof of date of execution, no proof of consideration actually paid, no proof of registration or enforceability, and no corroborative evidence such as cash received entries, possession transfer, or confirmation from the other party. In such circumstances, the alleged agreement remains unproved, unauthenticated, and legally unenforceable. Initiating reopening proceedings on such a shaky foundation amounts to jurisdictional overreach and arbitrary exercise of power.
Reopening Cannot Be Based on Borrowed or Mechanical Satisfaction
It appears that the reopening has been initiated mechanically on the mere existence of a photocopy, without independent application of mind, verification of the authenticity of the document, or inquiry from the assessee or alleged counter-party. Such reopening is nothing but borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law. The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to conduct preliminary verification and establish prima facie escapement of income before assuming jurisdiction under section 147.
Distinction Between “Reason to Suspect” and “Reason to Believe”
The material relied upon by the department, at best, gives rise to a reason to suspect, not a reason to believe. Courts have consistently held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace belief, and reopening based on conjectures and photocopies is legally unsustainable. The belief must be honest, reasonable, and based on verified material. This essential condition is conspicuously absent in the present case.
Photocopy Cannot Be the Sole Basis Without Corroboration
Even assuming (without admitting) that a photocopy can be looked into, it cannot be the sole basis for reopening unless supported by independent inquiries, statements recorded, financial trail, or admission by the assessee , and buyer of the properties who gave cash to the assessee . The buyers were not confronted to the assessee . An agreement is between two alleged parties being seller and buyer and they both confirm the transactions held between them. You are requested to confront the original agreement and all the alleged parties to the agreement being all the sellers, all the buyers to the assessee who is one of the seller. It is the prime duty of the assessing officer to confront all the parties mentioned in the agreement. If all the seller confirms the agreement and all the buyers confirm the so called photocopy of the agreement, then and only then this documents becomes an evidence otherwise denial of the seller and buyer shall make this agreement non est in the eyes of law.
There is no source of alleged cash paid by the buyer of the property and there is no material with the Ld AO which confirms that the seller has received the cash. If any is with the Ld AO, then confrontation is required and prayer is made to confront them with the assessee . .
Corroborative evidence is required for confirmation of the alleged cash received by the seller being assessee who is one among the sellers. No corroborative evidence has been confronted to the assessee by now. No statement of the seller and buyer has been recorded by the Ld Assessing Officer. In this scenario the Ld AO is requested to do the assessment as per law and further requested to do the things required as per law. In the present case there is no corroboration whatsoever and the entire reopening is founded on a single unverified photocopy of agreement. Such action is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and fair play.
Reopening Proceedings Are Therefore Void Ab Initio
Since the jurisdictional condition of section 147 has not been satisfied, the entire reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed and declared null and void. Any assessment framed pursuant thereto would be without authority of law and liable to be annulled.
Prayer
In view of the above facts and legal position, it is most respectfully prayed that the reopening proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell, without the existence of the original document and without corroborative evidence, be held as invalid and void ab initio, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and any consequential proceedings be quashed, and any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in favour of the assessee.
The sole material relied upon by the Income-tax Department for initiating reassessment proceedings and for making additions is a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell. It is respectfully submitted that the no agreement is available with the assessee, the original agreement is not available with the department, and the alleged photocopy has never been admitted, executed, or acknowledged by the assessee. In such circumstances, the photocopy relied upon by the department has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and cannot be made the foundation either for reopening or for addition.
Photocopy Is Only Secondary Evidence
A photocopy of a document is, at best, secondary evidence. Secondary evidence does not automatically become admissible or reliable unless the existence of the original document is first established, the loss or non-availability of the original is satisfactorily explained, and the execution and authenticity of the document is proved. In the present case, the existence of the original agreement itself is disputed, there is no explanation as to where the original is or who executed it, and there is no proof of signatures, witnesses, or date of execution. Therefore, the photocopy fails even the minimum threshold of reliability.
Income-tax Proceedings and Principles of Evidence
Though strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act may not apply to income-tax proceedings, it is settled law that fundamental principles of evidence, probity, and fairness do apply. Courts have consistently held that loose papers, unverified photocopies, and unsigned or unauthenticated documents have no evidentiary value unless supported by independent corroboration. The department cannot rely upon a photocopy as a conclusive piece of evidence without discharging the initial burden of proof.
No Proof of Execution of the Alleged Agreement
An agreement to sell derives its evidentiary value only upon proof of execution by both parties, intention to transfer rights, consideration agreed and paid, and mutual consent. In the present case, no signature of the assessee has been proved, no witness has been examined, and no confirmation from the alleged purchaser has been placed on record. A mere photocopy, without proof of execution, is a dumb document and cannot be acted upon.
No Corroborative Evidence Supporting the Photocopy
The alleged photocopy is not supported by any corroborative material such as bank statements showing receipt of consideration, cash flow or investment trail, transfer of possession, registration of sale deed, or statement of the counter-party. In the absence of corroboration, the photocopy remains a self-serving and unreliable piece of paper. It is well settled that one uncorroborated document cannot fasten tax liability.
Photocopy Cannot Create Taxable Event by Itself
Even assuming (without admitting) that such photocopy exists, an agreement to sell by itself does not result in transfer, does not automatically give rise to taxable income, and does not establish accrual or receipt of consideration. Without proof of actual receipt or accrual of income, no addition can be sustained merely on the basis of a photocopy.
Burden of Proof Lies on the Department
It is a settled principle that burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish genuineness of the document, its execution by the assessee, and nexus between the document and alleged income. The assessee is not required to disprove a non-existent or unproved document. Shifting the burden upon the assessee to disprove an unauthenticated photocopy is contrary to law.
Photocopy Without Original Is Legally Unsafe
When neither party possesses the original document, reliance on a photocopy becomes legally unsafe and impermissible. Such photocopies are easily manipulable, susceptible to interpolation, and devoid of sanctity. Tax liability, being a serious civil consequence, cannot be imposed on such fragile material.
Photocopy Cannot Override Denial by Assessee
The assessee has categorically denied execution of the alleged agreement and receipt of any consideration under it. Once the assessee denies execution, the onus squarely lies on the department to prove the document beyond doubt. In the absence of such proof, the photocopy must be discarded outright.
Addition Based on Photocopy Is Unsustainable
Any addition made solely on the basis of a photocopy of an alleged agreement is arbitrary, against settled principles of law, and violates principles of natural justice. Such addition deserves to be deleted in toto.
In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell be held as having no evidentiary value, any reliance placed on such photocopy for reopening or for making additions be declared illegal and unsustainable, and the reassessment proceedings and additions based thereon be quashed / deleted. The assessee relies on the following judgements
PCIT v. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta — Delhi High Court (2024). Citation: Delhi High Court, reported in 299 Taxman 82 / 474 ITR 97 (2025). The Department reopened assessment and made addition based on a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell land. The original agreement was never produced and there was no other independent evidence supporting the photocopy. The High Court affirmed the ITAT deleting the addition and held that a photocopy, without the original and without other supporting evidence, cannot sustain an addition, the Revenue failed to establish authenticity of the photocopy, and it was not a sustainable basis for making addition to the assessee’s income. Where the authenticity of the photocopy is challenged, onus lies on Revenue to establish the genuineness of the photocopy before making addition. Mere reproduction of photocopy without original or corroborative evidence is not sufficient.
Brij Kumar v. DCIT Central Circle — ITAT (2025). Decision reported and referring to the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta. The Tribunal noted that photocopy of agreement to sell cannot be treated as valid evidence in the absence of the original. It upheld that photocopies have limited evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to justify additions. It explicitly relied on the principles laid down in PCIT v. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta.
A photocopy is only secondary evidence and in the absence of the original document, it has limited or no evidentiary value unless its authenticity is independently established. Addition erased due to lack of original or corroboration. Where photocopy is the only documentary basis for reopening and addition, the Revenue fails in its burden to prove authenticity and actuality of the transaction.
The entire land sold is agriculture land and is situated at village @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ which is more than 8 KM from @@@@@@@@ municipal limits, but the sales consideration received by the assessee for sale of agriculture land has been shown as if it was an urban agriculture land. But it is absolutely rural agriculture land and its sale is nontaxable whether sales consideration received in cash or not or received in bank only or received in bank and cash both. But in the case of the assessee there is no cash element received by the assessee . Assessee totally denies the receipt in cash. Assessee is one of the sellers. The only sales consideration received by the assessee is Rs. @@@@@@@ (Share of the assessee ) which has been reflected in the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act . No cash element has been received by the assessee during the Fyr. 2019-20 or earlier years as alleged by the department as the sales deed was executed in the F.Yr. 2019-20. There is no element of cash written in the sales deed executed on 20.01.2020.
Buyer denies the payment of land purchased in cash and also seller denied the payment received in cash and moreover no agreement in original with the department. Nothing has been confronted to the assessee regarding sales consideration received in cash. The agreement is false, fabricated and has no legal sanctitity in the absence of its content confirmation between the seller and the buyer. The contents of the agreement has to be confirmed by the buyer and seller even in the case original is confronted to the assessee . Hence the case of the assessee is prayed to be decided on merit as assessee has not received any cash in the year or earlier years out of sales consideration received for sale of agriculture land.
Payment detail already submitted in the case of the assessee received by the assessee as per his share in the land sold during the Fyr 2019-20 .Cheque details already submitted.
Sale deeds registered on 20.01.2020 and 28.09.2022 are real sale deeds.
In response to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee replied Dt. 28.03.2024 timely and stated clearly that the land is agricultural land and is situated outside the municipal limits of Faridabad District, and hence not taxable.
He further asked to provide one month’s more time, but the same was not provided by the AO. Without providing one month’s time, the impugned order was passed u/s 148A(d), which is bad in law as the prescribed procedure could not be followed.
Mismatch of Figures during the course of this assessment proceedings.
The Insight Portal shows cash of Rs. @@@@@ – and total capital gain of Rs. @@@@@@@for the AY 2020-21 (verification results) in respect of the assessee .
The bank transactions actually received by the assessee are Rs. @@@@@@and not Rs. $$$$$$$$ as stated in the Insight Portal report attached with the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The said information is wrong.
Notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.05.2023 states that the total sale consideration of the property is Rs. @@@@@@ and not Rs. &&&&&& -, which again shows a clear mismatch of figures.
In the show cause notice, at Para No. 11, the cash receipts were shown incorrectly as Rs. @@@@@@ instead of Rs. $$$$$$ (as per Insight portal). There is no base for a figure of Rs. *******. .
An amount of Rs. @@@@@ was added to Rs. @@@@@ without any basis.
At the outset, the information transmitted by the investigation wing to the JAO and issue of notice Section 148A(b) is absolutely wrong without application of mind.
The proposed addition of Rs.@@@@@@ in the F.Y. 2019–20 is absolutely wrong for the cash element. The correct information on the basis of which notice under Section 148A(b) is stated to have been issued could not be provided to the assessee.The Ld AO , investigation wing considered that both the land measuring @@@@ marlas was sold in the AY 2020-21 but the truth is the land was sold in two years by the 8 shareholders in the land . The Ld Jurisdiction Assessing Officer forgot to inquire deep in the matter and even considered without making proper enquiries as if entire land sold in one year ie. AY 2019-20. The investigation officer and the jurisdictional assessing officer were having with them both the sale deeds.
On the basis of incorrect information, the reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2020–21 cannot be made, especially when both the sale deeds are already in possession of the investigating officer and with the Ld jurisdictional assessing officer. The total land was sold in two years not in one year. It means the entire cash could have been received for two years not for one year as capital gain in cash as per presumption of the Assessing Officer. Otherwise absolutely no cash was received by the assessee on account of sales consideration.
Moreover, the Ld. AO / JAO has not conducted any enquiry as per the mandate of Section 148A(a). The show cause notice has been issued in a mechanical manner, without making any independent enquiry and merely relying upon the information of the investigation wing by the Ld FAO.
And it is only the presumption of the Ld. FAO regarding cash receipt by the assessee.
Moreover, the entire cash received for sale of agricultural land cannot be presumed to be received in the F.Y. 2019–20. (According to the version of the department that assessee received cash for land sold)
You are requested to accept the ITR of the assessee filed in response to the noitice issued u/s 148 of the Act which has been issued without making independent enquiries as the cash was never received by the assessee which has been alleged by the department on the basis of false and fabricated agreement.
Moreover, the entire sales consideration received in the form of cash cannot be added for one land sales during the F.Yr. 2019-20. The information sent by the investigation wing is absolutely wrong for a sum of Rs. @@@@@@ for the AYr 2020-21. The determination of cash of Rs. &&&&&&&& by the investigation wing is absolutely wrong. The payment received in banks of the 8 persons for a sum of Rs. XXXXXXX is also wrong. The entire base for reopening of the assessment is wrong.
As per presumption of the department, if it a truth; then the cash was received in the year 2017-18 (13.02.2018), then it is income of the Fyr 2017-18. It cannot be income of the FYr. 2019-20 or F.Yr 2022-23 .But the truth is that assessee never received sales consideration in cash except in bank .
As per presumption of the department, if it is a truth; the entire cash received cannot be income in the form of capital gain of the AY 2020-21. But the truth is that assessee never received sales consideration in cash except in bank.
The Ld. JAO failed to make sufficient enquiries and relied on the information of the department which is not in accordance with law. The reopeneing based on a false information is challenged by the assessee
The assessee relies on the following judgement
Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd of the Delhi High Court 21.07.2011 as the Ld Jurisisdictional Assessing officer has not applied his independent mind to the investigation report sent by the Investigation Wing, Faridabad report. Hence the reopening in the case of the assessee is bad. Kindly waive off the proceedings or accept the ITR of the assessee filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act just to buy peace and do not make proposed addition as mentioned in the show cause notice Dt. 22.12.2025.
Author Bio
