DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,DELHI-8, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI V. POOJA MITTAL, DELHI

ITA 1336/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, which had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained money amounting to Rs. 7,20,00,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The dispute originated from a search and seizure operation that uncovered a photocopy of an 'Agreement to Sell' dated 20.04.2013, allegedly involving the respondent, Smt. Pooja Mittal, and Sh. Anil Narang for the sale of land. The AO treated the unaccounted difference between the sale consideration recorded in the books and the amount mentioned in the agreement as unexplained money. However, the CIT(A) found that the agreement was not signed by Sh. Anil Narang and that the land was subsequently sold to another entity at a higher price, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837584 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Kulwinder Singh, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-10 v Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Related party transaction
• Section: 148; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1336/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2014-15 DCIT Central Circle Delhi Vs. Pooja Mittal B-33, Defece Colony, Delhi-110024 PAN No. AHAPM5624K Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Respondent Sh. Akshat Jain, CA Sh. Rajat Jain, CA Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC dated 05.12.204 for A.Y. 2014-15 in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of Sh. Navneet Dawar, Sh. Anil Narang ( Proprietor of M/s. Unique Associates) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 and Sh. Gurvinder Duggal and the said search and seizure operation many related party transaction were found and proceedings u/s.133A of the Act were initiated on various assesses. Accordingly, a survey operation u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s. Narang Properties Prop. Anil Narang and during the course of survey proceedings some incriminating documents and seized. One of such documents was a Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 20.04.2013 which was signed only by the assessee Smt. Pooja Mittal for the sale of land situated at Revenue Estate of Village Fatehpur Beri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi to sell the property to Anil Narang for Rs.7,06,00,000/-. Based on this document statement of the assessee was also recovered who has confirmed that she had received Rs.1 crore in cash as advance alongwith cheques for the sale consideration. 3. In view of the above, a notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee reopening the assessment and based on the statement of the assessee that she had received Rs.1crore in cash and the copy of agreement to sell which was found in the course of survey operation in the premises of M/s. Narang Properties the AO came to the conclusion that the total transaction value is Rs.7,60,00,000/- (value of property Rs.7,46,00,000/- 35% of registered value), and since the amount received in the books of accounts by the assessee is Rs.40 lacs, the AO treated the balance of Rs.7,20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 4. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the agreement to sell was only signed by the assessee and not by Sh. Anil Narang and in the IBC proceedings pertaining to Sh. Anil Narang no addition was made with respect to the ATS purportedly entered into by assessee with Sh. Anil Narang. Against this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The DR supported the orders of the authorities below and also furnished the following objections from the Assessing Officer on the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) :- “4. I have perused the order u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act passed. I have considered the material available on record. In the present appeal, the appellant has raised ten grounds of appeal and same have been reproduced in para 2.1 above. 4.1.1 In Ground Nos. 1 to 6, the appellant has contended the addition of Rs. 7,20,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. Since all the grounds are interlinked therefore these grounds are dealt together in the following paragraphs. 4.1.2 The appellant has raised Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 6 in respect of addition of Rs 7,20,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act being difference in consideration on sale of land as per sale deed and photocopy of \"Agreement to Sale\" dated 20.04.2013 impounded during survey action on M/s Narang Properties (Prop. Anil Narang) at C-7, First Floor. Lajpat Nagar- 11, Delhi without rebutting the claim of the appellant that:- i. no such Agreement to sell having sale consideration of Rs. 7.60 crore was ever been executed by the appellant Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ii. no such land under consideration was sold to person named in alleged Agreement to sell ie. Anil Narang by the appellant iii. no such amount was received by her over and above sale consideration shown in registered sale deed by bringing any cogent or substantive material on record and also without conducting any independent enquiry from buyer and without getting valuation done of said property from the Govt. approved valuer also without examination of Shri Anil Narang to the affording an opportunity of cross appellant 4.1.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has contended that addition of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, is beyond jurisdiction, illegal and is bad in law being the same was made merely relying upon unauthenticated, unsubstantiated photocopy of \"Agreement to Sell\", that too, without confronting such \"Agreement to Sell\" in original, if any without rebutting some core question as under: (i) It is an admitted fact that the said Land was sold by the appellant to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2013 for total consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- which is above the Circle rate of said land at that time (ii) The said Land was not sold to the buyer (i.e. Sh. Anil Narang) as mentioned in the alleged \"Agreement to Sell\" then it could not be assumed that the appellant in receipt of Rs. 7.20 Cr. over and above sale consideration of Rs. 40 lakh. (iii) without adducing any cogent evidence by conducting any independent enquiry from Anil Narang and the buyer of the property (iv) without getting valuation done of said property from the Govt. approved valuer to rebut the claim of the appellant that the said Land was sold as per Circle rate at that time. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 4.1.4 Further, the AR of the appellant has also contended that the appellant has sold the said Land to Vitam Infrastructure Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2013 for consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs received through proper banking channels. The sale consideration of Rs. 40 Lakhs for 2466 Square yards (approx. half Acre) is more than Circle rate Le. 53 Lakhs per Acre at that time and also till date. 4.1.5 The Assessing Officer has made various allegations regarding transfer of shares of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited at very nominal value to Shri Anil Narang and Upkar Mani Sadh. The AR of the appellant in respect of said allegation has contended that said allegations are irrelevant and immaterial being M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited is separate legal entity in which the appellant is neither shareholder nor director and whatever transaction done by Viram Infrastructure Private Limited such as transfer of shares to Sh. Anil Narang has no relevance in the case of appellant which could justify the action of the assessing officer. Further, no evidence brought on record how could the appellant transfer shares of said company in which she is not a shareholder and No evidence brought on record that the appellant has received alleged amount of Rs. 7.20 Crore either from Sh. Anil Narang or from M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited. 4.1.6 The AR of the appellant further contended that the appellant has not sold the said Land to Sh. Anil Narang as mentioned in the alleged \"agreement to sell\", hence there is no basis of making such addition on account of receipt of Rs. 7.20 crore. Further, the AO has failed to afford an opportunity to the appellant for cross examination of Shri Anil Narang from whom it has been alleged that the appellant has received Rs. 7.20 crore even though the said land was not sold to him which is gross violation of principle of natural justice. 4.1.7 In support of her contention the appellant relied upon the following judgments: ➤ Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Kulwinder Singh [2019] 112 taxmann.com 382 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ➤ Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-10 v Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta[2024] 160 taxmann.com 723 (High Court of Delhi) ➤ Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130(High Court of Delhi) 4.1.8 I have considered the submissions and documentary evidences submitted by the appellant and also perused the assessment order. It is an admitted fact that the sole basis of making addition in the case of appellant is photocopy of \"Agreement to Sell\" (ATS) dated 20.04.2013 found & impounded during survey action at business premises of Shri Anil Narang. However, even after search and seizure operation original Agreement to Sell dated 20.04.2013 could not be found. 4.1.9 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 14.06.2024 has informed the undersigned that Interim Board for Settlement -VII, Chennai has passed the Order u/s 245D(4) of the Act in the case of Shri Anil Narang on 19.12.2023. 4.1.10 The undersigned has called for the copy of the order of IBS pertaining to Shri Anil Narang and the same has been received in this office vide letter dated 18.11.2024. It is pertinent to mention here that the IBS while deciding transaction with Pooja Mittal regarding sale of land 2 Bigha and 9 Biswa at Mehrauli (Khasra No. 409(2-0) and 518 Min (0- 9) in village Fatehpur Beri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi) and \"Agreement to sell\" (ATS) dated 20.04.2013 executed between Pooja Mittal has not made any addition of Rs. 7.20 crore in the hands of Shri Anil Narang by observing the following: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 4.1.11 The attention is also drawn to the fact that the said photocopy of ATS was signed by Pooja Mittal only and not signed by Shri Anil Narang. The proposal of the assessee for selling this land to Mr. Anil Narang was not accepted by him as he has not signed the agrrement to sell. Consequent to non acceptance to the terms of this transaction, the said land was sold by the appellant to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2013. In the absence of original ATS, duly signed by both the parties, and the transfer of the said land to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited proves the non releanvce of photocopy of ATS, that too only signed by the appellant. The said land was sold to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited for sale consideration of Rs 40 Lakhs, which is much higher than Circle Rate. 4.1.12 The appellant was neither the director nor the shareholder of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited. Therefore, the transfer of shareholding of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited to Shri Anil Narang and Upkar Mani Sadh for nominal value, has no bearing upon the case of appellant. Thus, the AO has made a presumption which did not materialize into conclusive evidence against the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 4.1.13 It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Anil Narang has approched the settlement commission and before IBS, in rule 9 report, PCIT commented that the as per the Agreement To Sell impounded during the search / survey action on Mr. Anil Narang, Ms Pooja Mittal was willing to sell the said land to Mr. Anil Narang for a sale consideration of Rs.7.46 crore. But later on, this land was sold by Mrs. Pooja Mittal to M/s Viram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd for a sale consideration of Rs. 40 Lakhs only and then the share of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited was sold to Mr. Anil Narang and Mr. Upkar Mani Sadh for Rs.1,00,000/-. Mrs. Poojal Mittal in her statement has accepted the receipt of Rs 1 crore against the said ATS and later on refunded the money when Mr. Anil Narang could not make the balance payment to appellant. The PCIT has also commented that cheques mentioned in ATS are matching with the bank statement clearly establish that transaction was executed as per the ATS and Mr. Anil Narang has neither disclosed the source of the money nor shown payment to Ms. Pooja Mittal in her cash flow statement before IBS. 4.1.14 The IBS in its order dated 19.12.2023 (supra) has considered all the above facts and document available on record has observed that on-money, if any, paid in the transaction cannot be assessed for lack of conclusive evidence. The IBS has treated the payment of Rs 1 Crore by Mr. Anil Narang to Ms. Pooja Mittal (the same was refunded to Anil Narang) as investment out of undisclosed income as mentioned in \"Agreement to Sell\" (ATS) dated 20.04.2013 in the hands of Mr. Anil Narang. 4.1.15 The IBS has rejected the evidentiary value of the said ATS in the absence of any other independent evidence to the prove the same and IBS has not taken any adverse view on the sale of land by Ms. Pooja Mittal to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited and thereafter acquisition of shares of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited by Mr. Anil Narang and Mr. Upkar Mani Sadh due to lack of conclusive evidence. Hence no addition has been made by the IBS with regard to transfer of the said land from Ms. Pooja Mittal to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited and transfer of share of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited to Mr. Anil Narang and Mr. Upkar Mani Sadh. The Only addition made by the IBS in this entire transaction is Rs.1 crore on account of investment out of undisclosed business income in the hands of Mr. Anil Narang. In view of the facts discussed above, addition cannot be made in the hands of appellant with regard to transfer of land by the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 appellant. Further as Rs.1 crore received by the appellant, refunded back to Mr. Anil Narang, no addition in hand of appellant can be made in this regard as well. Accordingly, I hereby delete the addition made of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act unexplained money in the hands of the appellant. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 6 of appeal are allowed.” 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the addition was made only based on the photocopy of the agreement that too only signed by the assesse and not by other party namely Sh. Anil Narang. The transaction was not materialized and as a matter of fact the assessee has repaid the advance received in cash to Sh. Anil Narang which was categorically given in her statement while answering question No.10 while giving statement u/s.131 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this statement and reply was also taken note of this fact by the AO in his assessment order at para 4.3. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse further submitted that even in the IPC proceedings though the discussion on this ATS came no addition made in the hands of Sh. Anil Narang which shows that the transaction of cancellation is genuine. Therefore, placing strong reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no addition is warranted in the case of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition which may be sustained. 8. Heard rival submission and perused the orders of the authorities below. A search and seizure operation was carried Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 out at the premises of Sh. Navneet Dawar, Sh. Anil Narang ( Proprietor of M/s. Unique Associates) and Sh. Gurvinder Duggal and the said search and seizure operation many related party transaction were found and proceedings u/s.133A of the Act were initiated on various assesses. Accordingly, a survey operation u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s. Narang Prperties Prop. Anil Narang and during the course of survey proceedings some incriminating documents and seized. One of such documents was a Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 20.04.2013 which was signed only by the assessee Smt. Pooja Mittal for the sale of land situated at Revenue Estate of Village Fatehpur Beri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi to sell the property to Anil Narang for Rs.7,06,00,000/-. Based on this document statement of the assessee was also recovered who has confirmed that she had received Rs.1 crore in cash as advance alongwith cheques for the sale consideration. 9. In view of the above, a notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee reopening the assessment and based on the statement of the assessee that she had received Rs.1crore in cash and the copy of agreement to sell which was found in the course of survey operation in the premises of M/s. Narang Properties the AO came to the conclusion that the total transaction value is Rs.7,60,00,000/- (value of property Rs.7,46,00,000/- 35% of registered value), and since the amount received in the books of accounts by the assessee is Rs.40 lacs, the AO treated the balance of Rs.7,20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 10. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition considering the evidences furnished, submissions of the assessee and the avernments in the assessment order observing that the photocopy of the agreement to sell was signed only the asessee Pooja Mittal and not signed by Sh. Anil Narang, the proposal of the assessee for selling this property to Mr. Anil Narang was not accepted by him as he has not signed the agreement to sell, consequent to non acceptance of the terms of this transaction the said property was sold subsequently by the assessee to M/s.Vikram Infrastructure Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2013. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that in the absence of original agreement to sell duly signed by both the parties and transfer of said land to M/s. Vikram Infrastructure Private Limited proves the non relevance on photocopy of ATS that too only signed by the assessee and not by other party Sh. Anil Narang. He also observed that the land was sold to M/s. Vikram Infrastructure Private Limited for a sale consideration of Rs.40 lacs which is much higher than the circle rate. The Ld. CIT(A) also taken cognizance of the copy of the order of IBS proceedings pertaining to Sh. Anil Narang and observed that the IBS while deciding the transaction with Pooja Mittal regarding sale of land and the agreement to sell dated 20.04.2013 executed by Pooja Mittal, no addition of Rs.7.20 crores was made in hands of Sh. Anil Narang. 11. We observed that the Ld. CIT(A) in detail considered various evidences, submissions and avernments made by the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 Assessing Officer in the assessment order, deleted the addition by observing as under :- “4.1.10 The undersigned has called for the copy of the order of IBS pertaining to Shri Anil Narang and the same has been received in this office vide letter dated 18.11.2024. It is pertinent to mention here that the IBS while deciding transaction with Pooja Mittal regarding sale of land 2 Bigha and 9 Biswa at Mehrauli (Khasra No. 409(2-0) and 518 Min (0-9) in village Fatehpur Beri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi) and \"Agreement to sell\" (ATS) dated 20.04.2013 executed between Pooja Mittal has not made any addition of Rs. 7.20 crore in the hands of Shri Anil Narang by observing the following: Specific comments: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by selectively referencing the IBS order of Shri Anil Narang. The Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly emphasizes that no addition was made for Rs. 7.20 crore in the hands of Shri Anil Narang, thereby attempting to dismiss the entire transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to note that the IBS order, as quoted in the very same paragraph, explicitly found that the \"Agreement to Sell\" (ATS) was a valid document and made a specific addition of Rs. 1 crore in Shri Anil Narang's hands. This addition was on account of the investment made to Ms. Pooja Mittal as advance money, thereby corroborating the existence of a transaction beyond the declared value. 4.1.11 The attention is also drawn to the fact that the said photocopy of ATS was signed by Pooja Mittal only and not signed by Shri Anil Narang. The proposal of the assessee for selling this land to Mr. Anil Narang was not accepted by him as he has not signed the agreement to sell. Consequent to non-acceptance to the terms of this transaction, the said land was sold by the appellant to Mis Viram Infrastructure Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2013. In the absence of original ATS, duly signed by both the parties, and the transfer of the sald land to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited proves the non relevance of photocopy of ATS, that too only signed by the appellant. The said land was sold to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited for sale consideration of Rs 40 Lakhs, which is much higher than Circle Rate. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 Specific comments: In this regard it's submitted that as established in the preceding para, the Ld. CIT(A) himself herself has quoted the IBS order, which proves that the ATS was a valid document on the basis of which the IBS made a finding and a significant addition in Shri Anil Narang's case. The Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion that the subsequent sale to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited for Rs. 40 lakhs proves the irrelevance of the ATS is a superficial finding. The subsequent sale and the immediate transfer of shares of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited to Shri Anil Narang is part of a deliberate scheme to suppress the true sale consideration and should be viewed as a single, composite transaction. 4.1.12 The appellant was neither the director nor the shareholder of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited. Therefore, the transfer of shareholding of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited to Shri Anil Narang and Upkar Mani Sadh for nominal value, has no bearing upon the case of appellant. Thus, the AO has made a presumption which did not materialize into conclusive evidence against the appellant. Specific comments: In this regard it's submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly concluded that the transfer of shares of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited to Shri Anil Narang has no bearing on the appellant's case. The sale of the land to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited and the subsequent acquisition of its shares by Shri Anil Narang is a well-established tax evasion technique. The true nature of the transaction is the transfer of the land from Ms. Pooja Mittal to Shri Anil Narang for the agreed-upon sale consideration of Rs. 7.46 crore, which includes the on- money component. The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the circumstantial evidence and the actual outcome of the transaction. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 14 4.1.13 It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Anil Narang has approached the settlement commission and before IBS, in rule 9 report, PCIT commented that the as per the Agreement to Sell impounded during the search/survey action on Mr. Anil Narang, Ms Pooja Mittal was willing to sell the said land to Mr. Anil Narang for a sale consideration of Rs. 7.46 crore. But later on, this land was sold by Mrs. Pooja Mittal to M/s Viram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd for a sale consideration of Rs. 40 Lakhs only and then the share of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited was sold to Mr. Anil Narang and Mr. Upkar Mani Sadh for Rs. 1,00,000/-, Mrs. Pooja Mittal in her statement has accepted the receipt of Rs 1 crore against the said ATS and later on refunded the money when Mr. Anil Narang could not make the balance payment to appellant. The PCIT has also commented that cheques mentioned in ATS are matching with the bank statement clearly establish that transaction was executed as per the ATS and Mr. Anil Narang has neither disclosed the source of the money nor shown payment to Ms. Pooja Mittal in her cash flow statement before IBS. Specific comments: In this regard it's submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) acknowledges that the PCIT, in the Rule 9 Report, clearly established that the Agreement to Sell was for Rs. 7.46 crore and that Ms. Pooja Mittal had accepted the receipt of Rs. 1 crore against the said ATS. This admission by the appellant, which is a key piece of evidence, directly contradicts the Ld. CIT(A)'s own conclusion that the ATS is irrelevant and that the transaction did not take place for the higher value. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to reconcile his/her conflicting findings and has chosen to ignore the appellant's own sworn statement. 4.1.14 The IBS in its order dated 19.12.2023 (supra) has considered all the above facts and document available on record has observed that on-money, if any, paid in the transaction cannot be assessed for lack of conclusive evidence. The IBS has treated the payment of Rs 1 Crore by Mr. Anil Narang to Ms. Pooja Mittal (the same was refunded to Anil Narang) as investment out of undisclosed income as mentioned in \"Agreement to Seil\" (ATS) dated 20.04.2013 in the hands of Mr. Anil Narang. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 15 4.1.15 The IBS has rejected the evidentiary value of the sald ATS in the absence of any other independent evidence to the prove the same and IBS has not taken any adverse view on the sale of land by Ms. Pooja Mittal to Mis Viram Infrastructure Private Limited and thereafter acquisition of shares of Mis Viram Infrastructure Private Limited by Mr. Anil Narang and Mr. Upkar Mani Sadh due to lack of conclusive evidence. Hence no addition has been made by the IBS with regard to transfer of the said land from Ms. Pooja Mittal to M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited and transfer of share of M/s Viram Infrastructure Private Limited to Mr. Anil Narang and Mr. Upkar Mani Sadh. The Only addition made by the IBS in this entire transaction is Rs.1 crore on account of investment out of undisclosed business income in the hands of Mr. Anil Narang. In view of the facts discussed above, addition cannot be made in the hands of appellant with regard to transfer of land by the appellant. Further as Rs.1 crore received by the appellant, refunded back to Mr. Anil Narang, no addition in hand of appellant can be made in this regard as well. Accordingly, I hereby delete the addition made of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money in the hands of appellant. Specific comments: Paragraphs 4.1.14 and 4.1.15 are taken together because they represent the final conclusions of the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard it's submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s final conclusion to delete the addition is based on a series of erroneous premises. The Ld. CIT(A) argues that since the IBS order states that on-money was not assessed in Shri Anil Narang's hands due to lack of conclusive evidence, it cannot be assessed in Ms. Pooja Mittal's hands. This is a flawed conclusion, as the addition made by the IBS of Rs. 1 crore proves that the transaction was real and that the money was from unaccounted sources. The Ld. CIT(A) also erroneously concludes that since the Rs. 1 crore was refunded, no addition can be made in the appellant's hands. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was under Section 69A for unexplained money, which requires an explanation for the source and nature of the money received. The refund of the money at a later date does not erase the tax liability that crystallized on the date of receipt. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition is based on a series of factual and legal misinterpretations and should be set aside. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 16 3. Further, on this issue, reliance is once again placed on the assessment order passed by the A.O. The assessment order has been framed by the AO after providing due opportunities to the assessee and after examining the reply of the assessee as well as material facts available on records and considering the incriminating material linking the assessee, 4. Further as directed copy of assessment order of Pooja Mittal, survey report and statement of Anil Narang and Pooja Mittal are enclosed with this letter. Copy of assessment order of Anil Narang will be provided in due course. 12. On careful perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) we do not find any valid and good reasons to reverse the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the revenue. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [M. BALAGANESH] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.02.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "