ADITI JAIN C/O MOOL CHAND BHAGWAN DASS ,GURGAON V. ITO,WARD-1(1), GURGAON

ITA 4910/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Aditi Jain, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained investments in property. Aditi Jain, along with 11 other individuals, entered into an agreement to purchase immovable property for a total consideration significantly higher than the registered value. The Assessing Officer questioned the source of funds for the purchase, leading to a re-assessment that added a substantial amount to Aditi's income, which was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. However, the Tribunal found the additions to be based on insufficient evidence and overturned the decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471945 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4910/Del/2024 (Assessment Years:2012-13) Aditi Jain C/o Mool Chand Bhagwan Dass, Hailymandi, Gurgaon Vs. ITO Ward-1 (1) Gurgaon ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: APUPJ7390D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (referred in short as “NFAC”) for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee, an individual filed its return of income on 20.07.2012 declaring income at Rs.1,89,980/-. The case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act and upon completion of procedural formalities the re-assessment was 2 finalized upon making addition of Rs.23,55,411/- which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, instant appeal before us. 3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee entered into an agreement to purchase immovable property alongwith 11 other individual members for a total consideration of Rs.4,54,,64,000/-, the assessee’s share whereof was Rs.42,22,226/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer noted that the property in question was registered at lower value of Rs.2,02,31,000/- with the appellant’s share being of Rs.20,37,012/-. The ld. Assessing Officer noted that the property in question was registered at lower value of Rs.2,02,31,000/- with the appellant’s share in the registered value being of Rs.20,37,012/-. The source of the funds used for purchase of the property was directed to explain whereupon it was submitted that Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for the amount of Rs.18,66,815/- paid via demand draft No.05/05/2011 and the source of this fund was a combination of her past savings and financial support from her father and spouse. Though the same was accepted the source of remaining investment of Rs.23,55,411/- explanation whereof since not found to be specific particularly in the absence of any substantive evidence, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) categorically mentioned that the appellant and other 11 individual members entered into an agreement to purchase the said property. He further relied upon the submission made one Smt. Anuradha, wife of Sh. Ajit Singh, one of the sellers of the said property who stated that the land was sold at Rs.11200,000/- per acre and in terms of the 3 agreement, got her share of Rs.87,92,000/- and further received cash of Rs.26,00,000/-during registry. It was further stated that she received an amount of Rs.46,87,500/- through cheque during registry. According to her the other members have received their shares in cash over and above the registered amount in the same way. 4. On the other hand the matter the appellant’s contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) and before us as well as in this that no payments were made beyond the amount recorded in the registered sale deed but the same was not found satisfactory and he, therefore, upheld the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 6. After careful consideration of the factual aspect of the matter and the orders passed by the authorities below it is found that though the agreement was entered into by the assessee alongwith 11 individuals and no specific statement was made by Smt. Anuradha, wife of Sh. Ajit Singh claim to be one of the sellers of the said property directly against the assessee that cash competent has been paid by her which is over and above the registered value, the confirmation of additions by the CIT(A) only on this basis in the absence of any cogent evidence in the hands of the revenue found to be surmises and conjectures. Hence, the addition is practically having no strong foundation except surmises and conjectures which may further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary bad and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4 7. With the above observations thus the additions made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2025. Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-12.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "