On-money addition fails where assessment lacks direct evidence, relied-on material is withheld, and consistency favours the assessee.

Addition for alleged on-money payment to a builder was unsustainable where the assessment did not explain how the figure was derived and did not identify any direct material, email, or working linking the assessee to the payment. The Tribunal noted that the addition rested on third-party material and statements connected with the builder, but the assessee was not furnished the relied-upon evidence or given an effective opportunity to test it. Applying consistency with a co-ordinate bench decision on substantially similar facts involving the same builder, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 21,50,000 as alleged on-money paid to the builder was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explain how the figure of Rs. 21,50,000 was arrived at and did not specify any email, working, or direct material linking the assessee to the alleged on-money payment. The addition was based on third-party material and statements from persons connected with the builder, but the assessee was not supplied the relied-upon material or given an opportunity to test that evidence. Following the co-ordinate bench decision on substantially similar facts involving the same builder, and applying the principle of consistency, the Tribunal held that the impugned addition could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The addition of alleged on-money was deleted and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---