DCIT Vs Rohit Gupta (ITAT Chandigarh)
Summary : The appeals concern additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year 2022–23 on account of alleged on-money payments treated as unexplained investment under Section 69B. The revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A), who had deleted the additions. The Tribunal first addressed ITA No. 201/Chandi/2025, noting that the facts in both appeals were identical.
A search under Section 132 was conducted on 16 November 2021 in the case of M/s Home Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (HBPL). During the search, incriminating material was found indicating alleged on-money payments by purchasers of properties in a township project developed by HBPL under the name ‘Sunview Enclave’ in Ludhiana. The assessee was one of the directors of HBPL and had purchased an SCO (SCO No. 8, 144.44 square yards) in the project for a registered value of Rs. 22 lakh.
During HBPL’s assessment proceedings, the department determined that the fair market value of plots and SCOs sold by HBPL was significantly higher than the registered values. The AO in the present case referred to these findings and adopted a saleable value of Rs. 33,000 per square yard. On this basis, the AO proposed an addition for alleged on-money. The assessee, in its reply dated 15 March 2024, denied the allegation. However, the AO relied on the search findings and statements recorded during the proceedings and computed the fair market value of the SCO at Rs. 99.27 lakh. The differential amount of Rs. 77.27 lakh was added as unexplained investment under Section 69B.
