ANUPAMA GUPTA,CHANDIGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHANDIGARH

ITA 972/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Anupama Gupta against the order of the CIT(A), which upheld the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 to her income as unexplained investment. The addition was based on an Excel sheet found at the premises of Omaxe Group, where a figure of Rs. 8,000 was allegedly multiplied by 100 by the Assessing Officer to arrive at Rs. 8,00,000. The Tribunal scrutinized the methodology used by the Assessing Officer and found it arbitrary and speculative, lacking any factual basis or verification. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made without any investigation or justification, violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791639 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: JATIN VERMA; WAY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 972/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Anupama Gupta, 3118, Sector 24D, Chandigarh 160024 बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward 2, Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AMNPG8560C अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Jatin Verma, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 09.10.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement :08.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi 2. Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 2 1. That the Payment was made Solely Through Banking Channels and no cash paid by appellant for Purchase of Plot- (b) The Appellant has made a total payment of 34,33,027/-for the purchase of the land and development charges. The entire payment was made through the following banking bank channels. (d) There were no cash transactions involved in the purchase of the property, and therefore, the addition of 8,00,000/- on the basis of certain loose sheets and Excel files recovered from the premises of a third party (\"Omaxe Group\"), is baseless and unsupported by facts OR any relevant documentation. 2. Arbitrary and Baseless Interpretation of Amount in Excel Sheet- (a) The Ld. AO adopted an illogical and unverified assumption that the figure of 8,000/- mentioned in the Excel sheet should be multiplied by 100 to arrive at 8,00,000/-. There is no evidence on record to establish such a methodology nor any verification from the Appellant. Such mathematical manipulation is arbitrary, speculative. speculative, and without application of mind. (b) This is a clear case of addition made without any investigation OR justification in the Appellant's context and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 3 (c) That the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) has grossly erred, both in fact and in law, in adopting the figure of 8,00,000/- as undisclosed income by multiplying the figure of 8,000/- by 100, purportedly based on a presumed modus operandi of the searched party (M/s Omaxe Group), without any corroborative evidence, rationale, OR lawful basis. 3. Lack of Corroborative Evidence for the Addition- (a) The addition of 8,00,000/- is based solely on an Excel sheet found at the premises of Omaxe Group. There is no other corroborative evidence, such as receipts, bank statements, OR statements from third parties and these excel sheets neither bear the signature of the appellant nor originate from her possession, to support the claim that the Appellant made any such cash payment. (b) In the absence of any concrete evidence, the addition is arbitrary, unjustifiable, and violates the provisions of the Income Tax Act. As per Section 69 of the Act, no adverse inference can be drawn unless there is credible and corroborative evidence of investment OR expenditure. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per order of the CIT(A) are as under: Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 4 The case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2023 based on the information received from Insight Portal of the Department uploaded by the DDIT/ADIT (Inv.)-2, Chandigarh that the appellant had purchased a flat from M/s Omaxe Group (project M/s Omaxe City, Yamuna Nagar) and paid cash amount of Rs.8,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2018-19 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s. 148, 143(2), 142(1), show- cause notice to the appellant. In response, the appellant furnished written submission along with documentary evidences and also raised objection against the re-opening of the assessment. The AO perused the details furnished by the appellant. Based on the sworn statements of Shri Sahil Juneja, AGM (IT), M/s Omaxe Limited, Shri Sushant Lambhate, Manager, CRM Department Shri Ravinder Paliwal, employee of M/s Omaxe Group, digital data shared by the DDIT/ADIT (Inv.) and also relied on the various case laws, the AO held that the appellant had paid cash amounting to Rs.8,00,000/-to M/s Omaxe Group in lieu of purchase of flat in addition to the payments made through banking channel etc and Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 5 hence the same was treated as un-explained investment u/s.69 of the Act and added to the total income of the appellant. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on 28.03.2024. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.03.2024, the appellant preferred the appeal. 4. The only issued involved in this appeal is payment of Rs. 8 lacs allegedly paid by the Assessee to Omaxe Group in cash. On this issue, the Ld. CIT(A) has given his findings in the appellate order as under: - “5.6. As such, a detailed analysis of the facts brought out on record would reveal the fact that the explanation offered by the assessee and corresponding evidence produced to support the same are not reliable and, therefore, devoid of merits. Thus, the same cannot be considered as admissible evidence in the eye of the law. Under the circumstances, on an objective analysis and appreciation of all the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, I would like to apply the 'Theory of Human Probabilities' and 'Theory of Preponderance of Probabilities' in precedence over unreliable and inconsistent direct evidence filed by the assessee. In this regard, Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 6 reliance is placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court wherein it was held that apparent was not real in all the cases and emphasized the importance of the surrounding circumstances and application of the test of 'Human Probabilities' to prove that the apparent was not real. e apparent was not real. In view of the above, after applying the 'Theory of Human Probabilities & concepts of substance over form' aided with various case laws mentioned above, I treat the transactions made by the assessee by way of payment of Rs.8,00,000/- in cash over and above the registered value as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Moreover, the appellant elaborately relied on legal issues of re-opening of the assessment rather than facts of the case on which addition was made. Therefore, the action of the AO is upheld. 5. During proceedings before us, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee filed written submissions on this issue which is as under: - Ground No.2: Arbitrary and baseless interpretation of amount in Excel Sheet Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 7 (a) The Ld. AO adopted an illogical and unverified assumption that the figure of Rs. 8,000/-mentioned in the Excel sheet should be multiplied by 100 to arrive at Rs. Rs. 8,00,000/- There is no evidence on record to establish such a methodology nor any verification from the Appellant. Such mathematical manipulation is arbitrary, speculative, and without application of mind. (b) This is a clear case of addition made without any investigation or justification in the Appellant's context and is in violation of principles of natural justice. (c) That the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred, both in fact and in law, in adopting the figure of Rs. 8,00,000/- as undisclosed income by multiplying the figure of Rs. 8,000/- by 100, purportedly based on a presumed modus operandi of the searched party (M/s Omaxe Group), without any corroborative evidence, rationale, or lawful basis. (d) That the LD. AO's assumption that the entries maintained by the third party were deliberately reduced by two digits and Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 8 therefore need to be multiplied by 100 is wholly conjectural and without application of mind. The appellant submits that such an arbitrary presumption is not supported by any material evidence relating to the appellant and violates the principles of natural justice. Ground No. 3: Lack of Corroborative Evidence for the Addition (a) The addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- is based solely on an Excel sheet found at the premises of Omaxe Group. There is no other corroborative evidence, such as receipts, bank statements, or statements from third parties and these excel sheets neither bear the signature of the appellant nor originate from her possession, to support the claim that the Appellant made any such cash payment. (b) In the absence of any concrete evidence, the addition is arbitrary, unjustifiable, and violates the provisions of the Income Tax Act. As per Section 69 of the Act, no adverse inference can be drawn unless there is credible and corroborative evidence of investment or expenditure. Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 9 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the findings given by the authorities below are based on an Excel sheet found during the search operation of the Omaxe Group. In fact, even in the Excel sheet, the figure written is only Rs. 8000. The Assessing Officer has multiplied it by 100 and made it Rs. 800000/- as payment in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the findings given by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are without any concrete evidence against the Assessee. He further argued that it is only the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the figure of Rs. 8000 may be read as Rs. 800000/-and the presumption of the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 10 have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any evidence bringing on record. The AR argued that the addition made on presumption should not be sustained. 8. We have considered the findings given by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the AO has made the addition just on the basis of an Excel sheet entry of Rs. 8000/- by multiplying it with 100 without bringing on record any concrete evidence for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the presumption of the Assessing Officer and confirmed the addition. We find that there is no document available with the Assessing Officer for prompting him to multiply the figure of Rs. 8000/- by 100 making it Rs. 800000/-. It is just a presumption or suspicion. 9. We are of this considered view that in any matter whatsoever a strong, a suspicion made without brining Printed from counselvise.com 972-Chd-2025 Anupama Gupta, Chandigarh 11 on record any concrete evidence, no addition can be made / sustained. Therefore, we are not inclined to sustain the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Assessee’s appeal on this issue is accordingly allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 8.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "