ITAT Deletes Addition Made u/s 69A Based on Promissory Note Found in Possession of Third Party

The Tribunal held that a figure mentioned on a paper cannot be considered as evidence for treating the figure as unexplained money

ITAT Quashes Addition of Rs. 2.50 Crore

Nidhi | Nov 14, 2025 |

ITAT Deletes Addition Made u/s 69A Based on Promissory Note Found in Possession of Third Party

ITAT Deletes Addition Made u/s 69A Based on Promissory Note Found in Possession of Third Party

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has recently deleted an addition made by an assessing officer (AO), based on the promissory note found during a search operation in the possession of a third party.

The assessee, Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, an NRI, allegedly did not file her Income Tax Return (ITR) for 2017-18. A research and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Jesus Lal and the Universal Education group, Mumbai, where a promissory note was found written by Jesus S. Lal. On the note, it was written that Jesus S Lal promised to pay the assessee a sum of Rs 2.50 Crore. The AO, based on this information, concluded that the assessee had given a cash loan of Rs 2.50 Crore, and the income of the assessee had escaped assessment.

The assessee submitted that she gave a loan of Rs 50 lakh to Jesus Lal through a regular banking channel, and it was outstanding as of 31st March 2017. However, the reply was rejected, and the AO added Rs 2.50 crore under section 69A to the income of the assessee. The assessee approached the DRP challenging the validity of reopening, issuing notice, and the said addition. However, the DRP upheld the AO’s decision. Therefore, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, where the assessee challenged the addition along with the jurisdiction of the reopening notice under section 148, saying it was issued without proper approval and beyond the prescribed time limits.

The ITAT observed that the addition was only based on a promissory note without any corroborative evidence. It noted that the promissory note was found in the possession of a third party and was not directly related to the assessee. Additionally, Jesus Lal was not called during the assessment to question about the loan. It held that a figure mentioned on a paper cannot be considered as evidence for treating the figure as unexplained money. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs 2.50 crore.

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
Government Clarifies Time Limit for Completing Assessments Under Section 144C GSTN Enables GST Payment Using Credit Card, Debit Card and UPI in Telangana Tax Assessment Cannot be Held Invalid Over Minor DIN Errors or Omission: Budget 2026 Budget 2026: Govt Proposes to Extend Deduction Period for Units in IFSC Black Money Act Amended to Relax Conditions for Prosecution of Non-Disclosure of Foreign AssetsView All Posts