SH. AMIT JAIN,DELHI V. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

ITA 391/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Amit Jain and Nidhi Jain against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding alleged unaccounted income from the sale of a property. The property in question was purchased by the Jains and later sold to Pranjil Batra, following which a search operation led to the discovery of an agreement to sell, indicating a higher sale consideration than recorded in the sale deed. The tax authorities alleged that the difference represented unaccounted 'on money'. The Tribunal, however, found the agreement to sell to be of no evidentiary value due to its incomplete nature and the absence of necessary signatures and witnesses, leading to the decision in favor of the Jains.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838235 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDER KISHORE TANDON
• Keywords: Set aside; Cost of acquisition; TDS

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.390& 391/Del/2025 ITA No.1783/Del/2023 (Assessment Years:2019-20) Sh. Amit Jain, F72, Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3 254, E-2 ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110055 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADJPJ6475C Appellant .. Respondent ITA Nos.388 & 389/Del/2025 ITA No.1784/Del/2023 (Assessment Years: 2019-20) Smt. Nidhi Jain F72, Street No.7, Veer Savarkar Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092 Vs. Addl. CIT Central Range-1 335, 3rd Floor, E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110055 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADUPJ8625R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ravinder Kishore Tandon, CA Ms. Puja Rohatgi, CA Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 Sh. RajatTandon, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr, DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the Assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:- ITA No. & AY Ld. FAA who passed the appellate order Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order 388/D/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070711671(1) Dated 28.11.2024 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 389/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070712060(1) 28.11.2024 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 390/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070711845(1) 28.11.2024 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 391/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/PNL/F/271D/2023- 24/1055624015(1) 29.08.2023 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 1783/Del/23 2019-20 CIT(A)-23, New Delhi Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi- 23/10556/2018-19 Dated 11.04.2023 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 1784/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-23, New Delhi Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi- 23/10557/2018-19 Dated 11.04.2023 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 2. That the assessee had purchased a property shop No. 7GH-05B, Cherry Archade Techzone-IV, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. jointly being spouse for Rs.79,78,030/-. A search was conducted on 17.08.2020 of Shri Pranjil Batra to whom this property was sold. Assessee’s case was taken up as search assessment u/s 153C and the AO concluded on the basis of an agreement to sale found at the premises of Shri Pranjil Batra and reproduced at page No. 3 to 5 of the assessment order that in the agreement to sell the sales consideration is shown to be of Rs.1,92,00,000/- but sin sale deed same is shown of Rs.75,00,000/- and accordingly, addition of Rs.58,50,000/- has been made in the hands of each of the assessee for on money received as short term capital gain. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 2.1 In the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer mentioned that proceeding u/s 271D for violation of provision of Section 269SS of the Act has been taken up and matter referred to Addl.CIT, CR-01 for proceedings for which we find separate proceedings culminated leading to appeals here. Penalty under section 270A of the Act was also levied. 3. On hearing both sides we find that the contention of ld. Counsel for assessee is that the agreement does not bear the signatures of purchasers and has no witnesses and is a dumb document which cannot be relied to draw inference. 4. On the contrary, ld. DR has relied impugned order and submitted that the tax authorities below have very reasonably examined the impugned documents while drawing conclusion and it is on the basis of admitted facts coming out of the admitted documents in the form for agreement and sale deed the conclusion have drawn which require no interference. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and the findings of ld. CIT(A) in para 5 to 16 of the order in the case of Nidhi Jain are reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 “5. I have considered the material on record including written submission of the appellant filed during course of appellate proceedings. I have also perused the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act. The appellant has filed twelve grounds of appeal. All the grounds are relating to the impugned addition of Rs.58,50,000/- made by the AO. Therefore, all the grounds are taken up together. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant made two arguments. The first argument of the appellant is that the seized agreement to sell which has been made the basis of addition of Rs.58,50,000/- is of no evidentiary value, as it has not been signed by the other parties nor witnessed. The other argument of the appellant is that the cost of purchase is not disputed by the department and that there cannot be such a huge increase in the price of the property in such a short time. 7. I have considered facts of the case as well as grounds of appeal field by the appellant. It is observed that appellant claiming that the agreement to sell dated 17.07.2018 is of no evidentiary value as it has not been signed by the parties nor witnessed. It is observed that in the agreement to sell dated 17.07.2018 first party is mentioned as \"AMIT JAIN AND NIDHI JAIN\" and second party is mentioned as \"POONAM BATRA AND PRANJIL BATRA\" on an e-stamp valued of Rs.50 with description \"Article 23 - A Sale Agreement\". Further, the same is signed by Sh. Amit Jain (seller). Sale consideration, mode of payment and transaction details clearly mentioned in this agreement. Relevant part of the agreement dated 17.07.2018 are reproduced as under:- “NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSESESTH AS UNDER:- 1. That out of the entire sale consideration amount, the first party has received a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- RUPEES ONE CRORE TWENTY LAC ONLY) details as:- (i) Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque vide no 000005 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank on dated 05/07/2018 (ií) Rs.3,00,000/- by cheque vide no 419828 drawn on Yes Bank on dated 01/07/2018 and (iii) Rs. 1,15,00,000/- in cash, in advance, from the second party, as an earnest money and advance money, at the time of execution of this agreement. 2. That the first party hereby also agreed to handed over the physical vacant possession of the said property to the second party at the time of execution of proper transfer documents or sale deed in favour of the second party. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 3. That the second party shall pay the balance amount of Rs.72,0,000/- (RUPEES SEVENTY TWO LACS ONLY) to the first party on or before at the time of execution and registration of proper transfer documents/sale deed, in his name or in the name of any third party as advised or desired by the second party/him on dated 25/08/2018.” 8. On comparison of details of agreement to sell dated 17.07.2018 with the sale deed dated 01.09.2018, it is observed that sale deed dated 25.09.2018 (issue dated 01.09.2018) first party is mentioned as \"AMIT JAIN AND NIDHI JAIN\" and second party is mentioned as \"POONAM BATRA AND PRANJIL BATRA\" on an e-stamp wherein stamp duty of Rs. 3,75,000/- is mentioned with description \"Article 35 - Lease\" for same property as mentioned in agreement dated 17.07.2018. Further, the same is signed by Sh. Amit Jain, Smt. Nidhi Jain (sellers) and Sh. PranjilBatra, Smt. PoonamBatra (Buyers).Sale consideration, mode of payment and transaction details clearly mentioned in this deed as under: “Mode of payment Dated Amount By Cheque No 000005 05/07/2018 2,00,000/- By Cheque No 419828 05/07/2018 3,00,000/- Kotak Mahindra Bank, PreetVihar, New Delhi By Cheque No. 22042 08-08-2018 18,56,250/- By Cheque No. 360562 08-08-2018 18,56,250/- By Cheque No. 360561 08-08-2018 15,56,250/- By Cheque No. 226041 08-08-2018 16,56,250/- All from Yes Bank, PreetVihar, Delhi By TDS Deduction 75,000/- Total 75,00,000/-“ 9. From the evidences and records, it is found that all amounts, figures, dates, bank name are exactly same except cash component. Accordingly, it is conclusively proved that the details mentioned in these two documents are Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 true and correct and cash component was not disclosed in the final sale deed dated 25.09.2019. 10. It is also evident that two separate cheques dated 05.07.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- drawn in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi were already issued before the date of sale agreement i.e. 17.07.2018. In agreement, it is also mentioned that amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- will be paid on 25.08.2018 as per instruction of first party. 11. Only difference in both documents apart from cash transaction of Rs.1,15,00,000/-is that in agreement to sell cheque transactions mentioned are amounting to Rs.77,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- plus Rs.3,00,000/- plus Rs.72,00,000/-) whereas in sale deed it is mentioned as Rs.75,00,000/-, which is also the sole reason for the addition of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- (combined) instead of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- as mentioned in agreement. 12. Shri Pranjil Batra and Ms. Poonam Batra are purchaser and Amit Jain and Nidhi Jain are seller of the impugned property. The agreement is signed by both the appellant and her husband Shri Amit Jain. It is clearly mentioned in agreement that the first party have already received Rs. 1,20,00,000/- including cash of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. The agreement is signed by both the appellant and her husband Shri Amit Jain. Thus, both the appellant and her husband have acknowledged the receipt of consideration in cash apart from the onesincheque. Further, the document was found in possession of purchaser i.e. Pranjil Batra.In such scenario, this agreement itself proved its genuineness. 13. The claim of the appellant that the agreement to sale should be ignored is not supported by any evidence because on the stamp paper, both the sellers(co-owners of the property) have signed the document and given it to Shri PranjilBatra and Ms. PoonamBatra (the purchasers of the property). As the document is signed by the appellant, therefore it is an evidence. The details of transactions mentioned in the agreement to sale and the final sale deed are matching. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that the agreement should be ignored is not acceptable. 14. In this case, the details of the property in the agreement to sale and the final sale deed are the same. The purchase and the sale party are the same. The amount of consideration in cheque/ banking channels is the same. The agreement to sale is on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. The agreement to sale is signed by both the appellant and her husband. 15. The argument of the appellant that there cannot be huge increase in the price of the property in such a short time is immaterial because the appellant has actually received consideration and the same is documented Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 in the agreement to sale. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the purchase consideration is a fact. The evidence suggest that appellant has received consideration which has not been disclosed by the appellant. 16. In view of the above discussion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 58,50,000/-(50% of 1,17,00,000/-) is sustained. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 6. Now when we appreciate the material on record we find that the alleged agreement to sell have incriminating evidence is shown to be only signed by the seller and is dated 17.07.2018. The agreement is not shown to be witness by any person nor there is an endorsement as to who has drafted it. There are no signatures of the purchasers. 6.1 The agreement mentions of a cheque dated 05.07.2018 of Rs.2,00,000/- and cheque dated 01.07.2018 of Rs.3,00,000/- being received by the assessee couple and further the agreement mentions of receipt of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in cash an advance. Thus, the cheque mentioned of 05.07.2018 & 01.07.2018 are of date prior to this alleged agreement dated 17.07.2018. 6.2 Then agreement mentions that the deal has been finalised by Hari Om Properties and both the parties have to pay 1% commission to him. However, the said Hari Om Properties is not party to this agreement though as it appears to be a beneficiary it should have been tri-party agreement. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 9 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 6.3 The ld. tax authorities below have relied the sale deed wherein there is mention of two cheques both dated 05.07.2018 whereas one of the cheques No. 419828 of Rs.3,00,000/- as mentioned in the agreement is of 01.07.2018. 6.4 It further comes up from the appreciation of this transfer deed of a leasehold rights that it was executed on 26.09.2018 and it mentions that the transferor has obtained permission to transfer the said party in favour of the transferee from the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vide their transfer Memorandum No. Commercial Report/BRS/EGM/2018/994, dated 25.09.2018. Meaning thereby that on the date of alleged agreement, when alleged ‘on money’ was received, assesse did not even have authority to promise to sell the property by way of agreement. 6.5 There has been no enquiry from purchaser or any independent enquiry to ascertain the possible market rate of the property. An important aspect that comes up is that assessee’s claim for cost of acquisition taken u/s 48 of the Act has not been disturbed. There was no inquiry by the Assessing Officer to ascertain the fact that if at all the property had appreciated so much, so to have been transacted at Rs.1,92,00,000/- while it was acquired at Rs.79,78,030/- few months back. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 10 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 7. Thus, facts and circumstances when discussed above incline us to hold that the agreement to sell was inchoate document which lacked sanctity under law for its enforceability as it is not a document executed by both the parties. An admission to be conclusive must be established to be unambiguous and unconditional. The document lack details like particulars of witness or the person who drafted the agreementand the absence of beneficiary Hari Om Properties to join document also make this agreement inherently lacking necessary ingredients of valid agreement to sell and exhibits patent ambiguity thus not justifying drawinga conclusive opinion that this agreement contains admitted facts which can be considered to give conclusive finding and hold that assesse received ‘on money’in the transaction. 8. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances we are inclined to hold that tax authorities below have fallen in error in considering the agreement to sell allegedly recovered at the time of search of the purchaser to be a document admissible in law to draw conclusive inferences about receipt of cash component which remained unaccounted in reported income and on very limited facet of common cheque details drew conclusion, which deserves to be set aside. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 11 6 Appeals Amit Jain AY: 2019-20 9. The grounds are sustained and the additions made deserves to be deleted and corresponding penalty, thus, levied also deserves to be deleted. In the light of aforesaid circumstances the appeals of both assessee are allowed with a consequence to follow as per the findings above. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2026 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 18.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "