PRATYUSHA CHANDRA SUBUDHI,BHUBANESWAR V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 90/CTK/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pratyusha Chandra Subudhi against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000 as unexplained investment by the assessee. The dispute centered on the sale consideration of a property transaction where the assessee initially agreed to purchase a property for Rs.5,20,00,000 but later entered into a second agreement reducing the consideration to Rs.3,80,00,000 after the property was converted from leasehold to freehold. The Assessing Officer did not accept the revised consideration, leading to the addition of the difference as unexplained investment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, supporting the findings of the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840026 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2026
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIB BANERJEE; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: JAISH JOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.90/CTK/2026 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Pratyusha Chandra Subudhi, Plot No.327/2559, Back side of OMFED Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar. Vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : ANLPS 5378 R (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Jaish Joshi, Adv राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld Sr DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 24/02/2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.1.2026 passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10139830 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Jaish Joshi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had purchased a property namely “Residential Plot at Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar” for a consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/- from Shri Ajit Kumar Das by a sale deed dated 29.6.2015. It was the submission that a tax evasion petition had been received by the Assessing Officer that the property was being transacted for a consideration of Rs.5,20,00,000/-. It was the submission that admittedly, an agreement had been entered into by the assessee with Shri Ajit Kumar Das on 28.11.2014, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 2 wherein, the consideration was originally recorded at Rs.5,20,00,000/- and subject to the condition of conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold. The copy of the agreement reads as follows: “ Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 3 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 4 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 5 4. It was the submission that as the conversion could not be done within the time, the agreement was renegotiated and a fresh agreement was entered Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 6 into on 30.5.2015, wherein, the sale consideration was recorded at Rs.3,80,00,000/-. The agreement dated 30.5.2015 reads as follows: “ Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 7 5. It was the submission that a sale deed was also entered into on 29.6.2015 at a consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/- reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 8 “ Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 9 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 10 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 12 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 14 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 15 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 18 6. It was the submission that the second agreement having been entered into on 30.5.2015, the validity of the agreement entered into on 28.11.2014 no more survive and it is the second agreement which should be considered. It was the further submission that the Sub-Registrar also accepted the sale consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/- and no adverse inference is liable to be drawn. It was the submission that it was only because the condition mentioned in the original agreement was followed insofar as the conversion of the land from leasehold to freehold has not been done by the seller, it was then the assessee had renegotiated the price to Rs.3,80,00,000/-. It was the submission Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 19 that the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and on the basis of the first agreement entered into by the assessee at Rs.5,20,00,000/- brought to tax the difference of Rs.1,40,00,000/- as the unexplained investment made by the assessee. It was the submission that the Revenue does not have any evidence to show that the assessee has paid such Rs.1,40,00,000/- to the seller. It was the prayer that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that no cancellation of the original agreement has been shown by the assessee. He vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the agreement for sale dated 28.11.2014 shows that the sale deed is notorised and the name of the notary in the sale deed is also available. The same also shows Sl. No., date as also the name and address parties. A perusal of the second agreement dated 30.5.2015 shows that the Sl.No. and details of the notary are clearly vague and Sl. No. is not marked at all. A perusal of the agreement to sale deed dated 28.11.2014 shows that in clause -2, there is requirement of the first party to pursue the application for conversion in the G.A. Department for early conversion of the plot from leasehold to freehold. A perusal of the sale deed more specifically at pages 5 & 6 of the sale deed shows that the said property has been converted to freehold by an order dated 19.3.2015. Thus, the claim of the assessee that a fresh agreement has been entered into on 30.5.2015 because the conversion had not been done is false. A perusal of the agreement for sale deed dated 28.11.2014, which is showing the consideration amount of Rs.5,20,00,000/- is a much more detailed agreement whereas the agreement Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 20 dated 30.5.2015 shows the same as just agreement to specify the figure of Rs.3,80,00,000/-. A perusal of the sale deed clearly shows that the valuation of the property as per the Government rate is Rs.3,80,00,000/-. Thus, clearly the second agreement dated 30.5.2015 has been created only after fixing the government rate required for registering the property. The original agreement admittedly for Rs.5,20,00,000/- is clearly the main agreement, which is the very foundation for the sale of the property. A perusal of the agreement dated 28.11.2014 also shows that the same contains the mobile numbers of various persons involved whereas the second agreement shows to be entered into on 30.5.2015 have no details whatsoever. It becomes clear that the second agreement dated 30.5.2015 has been created only for the purpose of an agreement of creating evidence to respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the original agreement for sale entered into on 28.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.5,20,00,000/-. The claim of ld AR that the Revenue has not brought out any evidence to substantiate the amount of Rs.5,20,00,000/- does not stand insofar as it is the assessee who has entered into the agreement for purchase of the property and it is the assessee who has knowledge of this agreement dated 28.11.2014 but unfortunately this came to the knowledge of the revenue only on account of tax evasion petition. It may also be mentioned here that in the agreement dated 30.5.2015, the signature of the assessee is missing and only his name is written whereas agreement dated 28.11.2014 contains the signature of the assessee. All these clearly show that the actual sale consideration of Rs.5,20,00,000/- is as per the original sale agreement dated 28.11.2014 and not Rs.3,80,00,000/- as per the second agreement of sale deed dated 30.5.2015 or sale deed dated 29.6.2015. This Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/CTK/2026 21 being so, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands upheld. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/02/2026. Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ǒदनांक Dated 24/02/2026 Amit Ranjan, Sr.PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant- Pratyusha Chandra Subudhi, Plot No.327/2559, Back side of OMFED Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar 2. The respondent -DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar. 3. आयकर आयुÈत(अपील) / The CIT(A), NFAC Delhi 4. आयकर आयुÈत / CIT 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. स×याͪपत ĤǓत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "