INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD V. SURENDER KUMAR GOYAL, FARIDABAD

ITA 5622/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the decision of the CIT(A) which had reversed the addition of Rs. 83,49,800 to the assessee's income as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This amount was initially based on an excel sheet seized during a search operation at M/s Omax Group. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had sold the property in question before the alleged transaction date and that the addition lacked corroborative evidence. The Revenue challenged this reversal, leading to the current proceedings where the tribunal decided to uphold the addition based on the actual figure of Rs. 83,498 from the seized document, dismissing the extrapolated amount used by the Revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840282 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; AYUSH GARG
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 & CO No. 43/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Vs Surender Kumar Goyal, H. No. 224, Sector-10D, Faridabad NIT, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGGPG7554H Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 along with assessee’s cross objection CO No. 43/Del/2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23 arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078567614(1) dated 16.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 CO No. 43/Del/2026 Surender Kumar Goyal 2 3. Next comes the first and foremost issue between the parities on merits. There is hardly any dispute that the learned assessing authority had added an amount of Rs.83,49,800/- in the assessee’s hands as representing his unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act going by an excel sheet found/seized by the departmental authorities in the course of search dated 14.03.2022 in the developer M/s Omax Group of cases. We make it clear that this excel sheet has been fairly reproduced at page 8 of the assessment order dated 22.03.2024 itself wherein the correct figure as noticed therefrom is Rs.83,498/- only. The CIT(A) has reversed the impugned addition inter alia for the reason that not only the assessee had sold/transferred the unit in question on 03.07.2021 but also the alleged on-money addition lacks due corroboration against him in the assessment proceedings. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue seeks to revive the impugned addition in entirety whereas the assessee has preferred his cross objection challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessee’s respective vehement stands. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 CO No. 43/Del/2026 Surender Kumar Goyal 3 Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the impugned addition is very much based on extrapolation of the amount emerging from the alleged loose sheet i.e. “83498” to the extent of adding “00”; coming of Rs.83,49,800/-. We afforded fair opportunity to the department to support the impugned extrapolation by way of substantiation thereof based on any material discussed in assessment order. No such records have seen in the light of the day till date. This is indeed coupled with the fact that section 292C statutory presumption qua such seized records also goes against the department itself as there is further no scope of any extrapolation in absence of relevant supportive evidence as well. We thus deem it appropriate to go by the actual figure in the seized document “83498” only to uphold the impugned addition to the very extent against the assessee in these peculiar facts and circumstances. The Revenue instant sole substantive grievance is partly accepted in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow. 5. Learned counsel fairly submits that the assessee does not wish to press for his cross objection CO No. 43/Del/2026. Rejected accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 CO No. 43/Del/2026 Surender Kumar Goyal 4 6. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 is partly allowed and the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 43/Del/2026 is dismissed as not pressed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Naveen Chandra) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27/02/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "