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

Section 69 Addition Cannot Rest Solely on Uncorroborated Third-Party Excel Sheet: ITAT Agra

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 8326
Case Name
Ranjana Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2021-22
Advertisement

Ranjana Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra)

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC for AY 2021-22. The Tribunal first condoned a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal after accepting that the delay resulted from the assessee’s serious illness, advanced age, continuous medical treatment, and inability to attend legal and administrative matters.

The assessment arose after a search under Section 132 in the case of the Omaxe Group, during which a hard disk containing “MAIN REPORT” Excel files allegedly recorded unaccounted transactions. Based on entries in the Excel sheet, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 148 and alleged that the assessee had made an unaccounted cash payment of ₹16,28,700 for a project at Lucknow. As the assessee did not explain the alleged cash payment to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, an addition of ₹16,28,700 was made under Section 69. The CIT(A) upheld the addition despite the assessee’s contention that adequate opportunity of hearing and cross-examination had not been provided.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the addition rested entirely on an unauthenticated third-party Excel sheet recovered during the search of the Omaxe Group, without any independent corroborative evidence connecting the assessee with any actual cash payment. It was argued that the Excel sheet was neither authored nor signed by the assessee, did not constitute the assessee’s books of account, and was unsupported by any signed receipt or acknowledgment. The assessee further submitted that no incriminating material had been recovered from her possession, no evidence of withdrawal or movement of cash had been produced, and Omaxe Group had confirmed that only ₹9,89,450 was received through banking channels and no cash payment was received. The assessee also relied on her sworn affidavit denying any cash payment and argued that reliance on statements of Omaxe Group employees without permitting cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice.

Paid content

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

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 21,361

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