Ashok Singh Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)
Seller’s Secret Excel Sheet Cannot Become Buyer’s Unexplained Investment: ₹1.27 Crore “On-Money” Additions Deleted
Omaxe Search-Based On-Money Additions Deleted for Lack of Corroboration
The Agra Bench of the ITAT has deleted additions of ₹30 lakh & ₹97 lakh made as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 on the basis of Excel files recovered during a search on the Omaxe Group. The Tribunal held that loose papers and electronic data found with the seller cannot establish cash payment by a property buyer unless the entries are specifically linked to him through cogent & independent evidence.
The assessee had consistently denied paying any cash, while Omaxe itself confirmed that it had received only ₹1.51 lakh through RTGS and no other amount either in cash or through banking channels. Since neither the seized material nor statements of Omaxe’s employees were supplied to the assessee, and no opportunity of cross-examination was granted, the additions rested merely on assumptions & presumptions.
Omaxe Search Led to Reopening of Buyer’s Assessments
A search u/s 132 was conducted on the offices and residential premises of the Omaxe Group on 14-03-2022. During the search, the Department seized a hard disk containing Excel files allegedly recording unaccounted cash transactions.
Statements of Omaxe Group’s President, Manish Kumar, and various employees were also recorded u/s 131(1A). Based on a correlation of the electronic data and these statements, the Department concluded that various purchasers had paid unaccounted cash or “on-money” while booking properties in Omaxe projects.
The assessee’s assessments were reopened u/s 147. For AY 2020-21, the Department alleged that he paid ₹30 lakh in cash towards purchase of property. For AY 2021-22, a similar allegation involving ₹97 lakh was made.
For AY 2020-21, the assessee had originally declared income of ₹6,28,870. In response to notice u/s 148 dated 20-03-2024, he filed the same income and furnished the Omaxe ledger, computation, bank statement, purchase deed & related documents.
The AO nevertheless treated ₹30 lakh as unexplained investment u/s 69. A similar addition of ₹97 lakh was made for the following year. The CIT(A) confirmed both additions.
Assessee Denied Making Any Cash Payment
The assessee maintained throughout that payments for the property were made only through banking channels and that no cash was paid to Omaxe.
A confirmation dated 31-10-2025 issued by the Omaxe Group identified the property under Case No. SIB/1655 in the “Shubhangan Indore Baliyakhedi” project. Omaxe confirmed receipt of only ₹1,51,000 through RTGS from the assessee. It further confirmed that no other amount had been received from him either through banking channels or in cash.
The assessee also furnished an affidavit affirming that he had never paid the alleged cash consideration. Despite this direct denial and Omaxe’s confirmation, the additions were sustained solely by drawing inferences from the seized Excel data and statements recorded from third parties.
Material Found With Seller Needed Independent Corroboration
The ITAT observed that the documents and electronic data were recovered from Omaxe’s premises and not from the assessee. Therefore, the initial statutory presumption u/s 292C operated in relation to the person from whose possession the material was found.
Such third-party data could not automatically be treated as conclusive evidence against every property purchaser whose transaction the Department attempted to connect with the entries.
The Revenue was required to produce cogent evidence demonstrating that the particular entries related to the assessee, that the numerical figures represented actual cash and that the assessee had sufficient unexplained funds from which the alleged payment was made.
No cash trail, withdrawal, intermediary confirmation or other independent material was brought on record. The addition was thus based on an interpretation of the seller’s internal electronic records rather than proof of actual payment by the buyer.
Statements Recorded Behind Assessee’s Back Could Not Be Used
The Department placed reliance on statements allegedly made by Omaxe’s President and employees concerning unaccounted cash transactions. However, those statements and the underlying seized documents were not furnished to the assessee despite being used adversely against him.
No opportunity was granted to rebut the material or cross-examine the persons whose statements formed part of the assessment’s foundation.
The Tribunal reiterated that where the Revenue proposes to rely upon a third-party statement, the statement must first be supplied to the assessee. If requested, the person concerned must ordinarily be made available for cross-examination, since he becomes a witness for the Department.
Evidence secretly collected from one person cannot be used to fasten tax liability upon another without observing these basic requirements of natural justice.
A Person Cannot Be Asked to Prove a Negative
The assessee had denied paying cash and supported the denial through an affidavit, banking records & confirmation from Omaxe. In the absence of contrary evidence, he could not be expected to prove the negative proposition that no cash payment had ever taken place.
The ITAT held that additions u/s 69 cannot be sustained on conjecture. The burden was on the Revenue to demonstrate the existence of an investment not recorded in the assessee’s books and the unexplained source of that investment.
Earlier Omaxe Search Decision Followed
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Babita Verma v. ITO, ITA No. 74/Agr/2026, dated 22-05-2026, which arose from the same Omaxe search.
In that case, the alleged cash payment was also inferred from an Excel sheet and third-party statements not supplied to the purchaser. The addition was deleted because the purchaser’s name and the alleged cash amount were not adequately established through the seized record, and no independent corroboration had been produced.
Applying the same principle, the Tribunal deleted the ₹30 lakh addition for AY 2020-21. Since the facts for AY 2021-22 were identical except for the amount, the ₹97 lakh addition was also deleted. Both appeals were allowed.
Author’s Comments
The ruling does not say that electronic data recovered during search is inherently unreliable. It says that third-party electronic data must be connected to the assessee through legally admissible and verifiable evidence.
In property “on-money” cases, the strongest corroboration would ordinarily include a clear buyer-wise ledger, matching unit details, identifiable dates, cash withdrawals, acknowledgements, broker statements or an admission tested through cross-examination. A generic Excel code and an untested statement may create suspicion, but suspicion is not proof.
The Omaxe confirmation was decisive here because the very seller accused of receiving cash confirmed receipt of only ₹1.51 lakh through RTGS. When the seller denies cash receipt and the buyer denies cash payment, an unexplained investment cannot be manufactured merely from an ambiguous spreadsheet.
Cases Discussed
- Babita Verma v. ITO, ITA No. 74/Agr/2026, Agra ITAT, order dated 22.05.2026
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT AGRA
2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10489115 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the additions made u/s 69 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2025 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
3.(i) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2020-21, declaring total income of Rs. 6,28,870/-. There was an information that assessee has purchased an immovable property from Omaxe Group and paid on money amount in cash of Rs. 30,00,000/- during the year under consideration. Subsequently, a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at various offices and residential premises in the case of Omaxe Group on 14.03.2022, which led to seizure of various evidences including hard disk containing excel files. The statements of the President of Omaxe Group, Shri Manish Kumar and various employees of Omaxe were recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act. The correlation of seized evidence depicted that the data was related to unaccounted cash transactions pertaining of the Omaxe Group.
(ii) The data from excel sheet disclosed that the assessee has made investment in the property of Omaxe Group. The assessee’s case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2024. Assessee filed return in response thereof for A.Y. 2020-21, declaring same income of Rs. 6,28,870/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, seeking details and explanations with respect to the immovable property purchased during the year under consideration and the aforesaid amount paid in cash to the Omaxe Group. The assessee submitted Omaxe statement, ledger, computation, bank statement and purchase deed etc. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied and on the basis of the findings of the search action, treated the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unexplained investment and added in the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 28.03.2025 passed u/s 147 of the Act.
4. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal.
5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds:
“1. That the order passed by NFAC dt. 28.04.2026 u/s 250 of Income tax Act is bad in law, being passed not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of Income tax Act. same is bad in law, liable to be set aside.
2. That while passing the order, NFAC has completely ignored that the provisions of section 69 of Income tax Act are not attracted in the case of assessee, addition made at Rs. 30.00 lakhs, invoking the provisions of section 69 is against the provisions of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made on this score is liable to be deleted.
3. While sustaining the addition, the NFAC has not appreciated the facts that the information collected during the search, in the case of searched person, not in the case of appellant, cannot be used against the appellant, being the incriminating documents relied upon which, addition is made is not part of the regular books of accounts in the case of searched person, as per provisions of section 34 of Evidence Act as held in various decisions, same cannot be used against the assessee. Addition made, relied upon the same is bad in law, liable to be deleted.
4. That while sustaining the addition, the NFAC has not appreciated the facts that there is no evidence supported to the information in respect of making of own payment by the appellant, without having corelated evidences, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by NFAC, liable to be deleted.
5. That the order passed by NFAC, being bad in law, liable to be set aside.”
6. Perused the records and heard ld representatives for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue.
7. On the basis of various grounds raised hereinabove, the main point for determination under appeal is, as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unexplained investment, made by the assessee in the immovable property, u/s 69 of the Act?
8. Ld representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that the assessee has never made cash payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the Omaxe Group, the payment for the purchase of property from Omaxe were made through banking channel only. It is further submitted that on the basis of same search on ‘Omaxe Group’ and in similar circumstances, additions were made by assessing officer in the cases of various persons who had booked commercial or residential flats in project of Omaxe. The various benches of this tribunal have already deleted the said additions being based on surmises and conjectures. Ld AR has referred the Single Member Court’s decisions dated 22.05.2026 passed by the Agra bench of this tribunal in Babita Verma v. ITO, ITA No. 74/Agr/2026. Ld AR prays to allow assessee’s appeal.
9. Ld Sr DR relies on the impugned order.
10. The Agra bench of this tribunal in Babita Verma (supra) dealt with the same matter relating to the same search, u/s 132 on 14.03.2022, carried out on the Omaxe group and had held as under:
“3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 was furnished by the assessee on 29-08-2019 declaring total income of Rs 4,37,970. As per the information available with the income tax department, it was found that assessee had made cash payment of Rs 9,75,000 to Omaxe group from unaccounted sources for purchase of property. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 31-03-2023. In response, the assessee filed her return on 28-04-2023 declaring the same total income of Rs 4,37,970 as was originally filed. The Learned AO noted in the reassessment order that a search and seizure operation was conducted under section 132 of the Act on Omaxe group on 14-03-2022. In the said search, certain documents in the form of MAIN REPORT excel files were found wherein it revealed that assessee herein had made unaccounted payment of Rs 9,75,000 to Omaxe group during the year under consideration. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the payments made to Omaxe group was sought to be examined by the Learned AO. The learned AO noted that the assessee had paid Rs 9,75,000 in cash to Omaxe group for purchase of property in Omaxe Residency II, Lucknow. The assessee categorically denied having made any cash payment of Rs 9,75,000 to Omaxe group for purchase of property in Omaxe Residency II, Lucknow as alleged in the notice of the Learned AO.
4. The Learned AO however noted that excel sheet was found in the search of Omaxe group wherein figure mentioned thereon need to be multiplied by 100 and accordingly the assessee had made payment of Rs 9,75,000 in cash for purchase of property from Omaxe group. The ld AO also placed reliance on the statement recorded from Shri Vikas Goel, AGM Finance, Lucknow Project who admitted in his statement under section 132(4) of the Act to this effect. The Learned AO also noted that the President of Omaxe group Shri Manish Kumar had also confirmed in his statement under section 132(4) of the Act that the excel sheet date represent cash transactions carried out by the group. In compliance to the show cause notice dated 11.03.2024, the assessee furnished her reply on 13.03.2024 denying having made any cash payment of Rs 9,75,000 to Omaxe group for purchase of property. The Learned AO however completed the reassessment under section 147 of the Act on 28-03-2024 after making an addition of Rs 9,75,000 on account of unexplained investment made in cash.
5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee asked for certified copy of the seized documents from the premises of Omaxe Limited and the relevant statement recorded during the that search operation, wherein adverse information was given against the assessee. This was not provided to the assessee by the Learned AO. The same pleadings were made before the ld CIT(A) by the assessee. It was pleaded that the Main Report excel sheet is reproduced by the Learned AO in Page 7 of the assessment order. From the said excel sheet, there is absolutely no mention at all that assessee had paid cash of Rs. 9,75,000 to Omaxe Group. Infact even the name of the assessee is nowhere mentioned thereon. The Learned CIT(A), however, did not heed to these contentions and reiterated the observations made in the assessment order and confirmed the addition.
6. It is pertinent to note that assessee was made aware of the Main Report excel sheet only in the assessment order vide Page 7 thereon. In the said excel sheet, we find that the name of the assessee is not even mentioned. Further there is no mention in the said excel sheet that there was some cash payment of Rs 9,75,000 by the assessee to Omaxe group. Hence the explanation offered by the assessee that no cash was paid by her deserves to be accepted. Further some statements were stated to be recorded from the employee and President of Omaxe Group on oath, wherein it was alleged that the assessee had made cash payment to Omaxe Limited. But that such statements were sought by the assessee both before the ld AO as well as before the Learned CIT(A) and the same were never produced to the assessee. Hence statements taken behind the back of the assessee were sought to be used against the assessee herein by drawing adverse inference and conclusion that there was cash payment of Rs 9,75,000 made by the assessee to Omaxe Group, without even providing those statements to the assessee. It is trite law that any statement that is sought to be used against the assessee need to be first furnished to the assessee for her rebuttal. Thereafter if the assessee so desires, the said party who had originally given the statement should be made available for cross examination by the assessee and it would be the department’s duty to produce that person as the said party becomes department’s witness. Further the excel sheet was admittedly seized from the premises of Omaxe Limited. Hence the presumption in terms of section 292C of the Act would be on Omaxe Group that the said document belongs to them. Merely because some employee and President of Omaxe Limited allegedly stated that the entries mentioned in the excel sheet pertains to assessee herein, proceedings cannot be directly initiated on the assessee without making preliminary enquiry both from Omaxe Limited as well as from the assessee herein. I find that the revenue had never brought on record with cogent evidence that assessee herein had indeed made cash payment of Rs 9,75,000/- to Omaxe Limited. It is only an inference drawn by the revenue based on the excel sheet found in the search of Omaxe Limited and supplemented by statements on oath by employee and President of Omaxe Limited, which statements were not even put to assessee for her rebuttal. Hence it could be safely concluded that the assessment framed on the assessee herein by making an addition of Rs 9,75,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act suffers from various factual and legal infirmities. Hence we have no hesitation to delete the said addition of Rs 9,75,000 made in the hands of the assessee herein. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
11. We notice that the addition has been made on the basis of some loose papers and excel sheets found during the search action without any cogent and convincing evidence to corroborate the same. The confirmation letter dated 31.10.2025 is part of assessee’s paper book at page 28. The ‘Omaxe Group’ has confirmed that during the F.Y. 2019-20, the property booked by assessee, vide Case No. ‘SIB/1655’ having unit No. ‘SIB/SHUBHANGAN SCHOOL’ in the project namely “Shubhangan Indore Baliyakhedi”, situated at Indore and being developed by M/s Omaxe Ltd. and received the amount of Rs. 1,51,000/- through RTGS from Ashok Singh Yadav (assessee). It was further confirmed that no other amount was received by the Omaxe Group either in cash or through banking channels. The assessee has all along denied having made any cash payment in the transaction. The whole case of the revenue stem from search action on the seller group coupled with various statements of the employees and the President, Shri Manish Kumar, of Omaxe Group recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act. Neither the seized documents ever provided nor any opportunity of cross examination has ever been provided to the assessee. The assessee has also filed an affidavit to the effect that no such cash has ever been paid to M/s Omaxe Ltd. The affidavit filed during the assessment proceedings is part of assessee’s paper book at page 30. The assessee could not be expected to prove negative. No addition could be made merely on presumptions and assumptions.
12. The Single Member Bench of this tribunal in Babita Verma (supra) has deleted the additions made in consequence of the same search dated 14.03.2022 on the similar observations as mentioned hereinabove. We do not hesitate to follow the Single Bench decision and hold that the said addition is not based on any cogent and convincing evidence, deserves to be deleted. The impugned order is, thus, unsustainable. The aforesaid point is determined in positive in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue. The appeal is liable to be allowed.
ITA No. 514/Agr/2026
13. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 passed by the ld CIT(A), for A.Y. 2021-22, confirming the additions made vide assessment order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 147 of the Act. The facts are similar and issues are identical to that of ITA No. 513/Agr/2026 except the figures of addition of Rs. 97,00,000/- and other figures of referred income and dates etc., hence our findings in ITA No. 513/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this appeal also. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
14. In the result, the assessee’s appeals viz ITA No. 513 & 514/Agr/2026 are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.
Order pronounced on – 15.09.2026
