AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a lawyer by profession filed his Return of Income on 16-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 37,52,940/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income. Thereafter based on the information received for the insight portal of the Department, the assessee has purchased a residential unit in "Kalhaar Blues and Greens" project developed by M/s. Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short NODPL) and the assessee has paid on-money of Rs. 57,55,000/-. Hence show cause notice was issued following whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue of on-money paid to NODPL is considered by various decisions of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Based on the same, the additions were deleted in the case of Ashokkumar Prahladbhai Patel vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1300/Ahd/2025 dated 01-01- 2026. Following the same, the assessee appeal be allowed and the protective addition is liable to be deleted. 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities and requested to confirm the same. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived by it, it does not establish that the assessee had paid on-money in respect of acquisition of property made by him. 8. The evidences found from NODPL on the basis of which the addition has been made, was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna in ITA No.1793/Ahd/2024 dated 19.03.2025. The finding given in the said order is found to be as under: "7. The most important facts observed by us pertains to para No.9.1 to 9.4 of the assessment order. For the sake of ready reference and completeness, the said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: - 9.1 As per assessee, the decoded is done by the Department is its own and the search party has not given any a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious years hence, the amount involved for this year is only for under question. However, it is brought to kind notice of the assessee that the purchase deed is executed in the in the year under consideration hence, the all transaction are covered under this year only." 7.1 A detailed analysis of the relevant paragraphs from the assessment order reveals multiple inconsistencies and procedural lapses that render the addition unjustified. 7.2 Firstly, the decoding of figures has been done solely by the department without any independent verification, and the search party has not provided any authenticity for the same. This statement recorded on decoding has not been part of the assessment proceedings. The Revenue has relied o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justice. Without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the statement or verify its contents, the department cannot use it as the basis for making an addition. 7.5 Furthermore, NODPL has confessed before ITSC that it collected on money from the sale of land and buildings. However, the admission was made in a general context regarding all purchasers of the scheme developed by NODPL. There is no specific mention or direct evidence linking the assessee to this alleged on-money transaction. In the absence of any concrete evidence that the assessee was involved in undisclosed transactions, making an addition solely on presumptions is unsustainable. Any such addition must be backed by clear, conclusive proof rather than g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also reopened by the Department by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17. A copy of the assessment order passed in their cases have been brought on record in the paper-book and it is found therefrom that no addition for any on-money payment was made in their hands. When no addition was made in the case of other co-owners, the Revenue was correct in making the addition of payment of on-money in the hand of the assessee, on the basis of the same evidence. 11. In view of the above facts and also following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal referred above, the addition of Rs. 19,62,500/- made in the hands of the assessee on account of on money payment is deleted. The grounds taken by the asse....