ITAT Deletes Rs 24.70 Lakh Addition for Alleged On-Money Payment as AO Failed to Prove Cash Transaction:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has held that an addition towards alleged on-money payment for purchase of a flat cannot be sustained where the Revenue fails to establish actual cash payment through independent evidence.
Addition Under Section 69 Cannot be Sustained Solely on Third-Party Statements Without Independent Evidence

ITAT Deletes Rs 24.70 Lakh Addition for Alleged On-Money Payment as AO Failed to Prove Cash Transaction
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69 for alleged on-money payment cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party statements or seized documents unless the Revenue establishes actual payment through corroborative evidence.
The assessee purchased a flat for a recorded consideration of Rs 41 lakh but the Investigation Wing alleged that the assessee had paid an additional Rs 24.70 lakh in cash as on-money to the builder, Sabari Developers LLP. The allegation stemmed from material seized during a search conducted on Sabari Developers LLP. During the search, one of the partners of the builder allegedly admitted that cash payments had been received from certain flat purchasers and a chart reflected a cash component relating to the assessee's flat. Consequently, the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received.
The AO treated Rs 4.70 lakh as an unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act and made an addition accordingly. The Revenue Department examined the seized documents and the partner's statement and held that it constituted sufficient evidence to justify the addition.
The Tribunal observed no independent evidence was brought on record to establish that the assessee had actually paid any amount in cash. Moreover, the Revenue failed to produce any corroborative material demonstrating actual payment of cash by the assessee.
The ITAT held that Where the assessee produces a builder's confirmation showing receipt of consideration through banking channels and the same remains unrebutted, the burden lies upon the Department to prove the alleged cash transaction. In the absence of such proof, the addition is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs 24.70 lakh made as an unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2447My Recent Articles
- ITAT Upholds Section 148 Reopening But Restricts Rs 30 Lakh Accommodation Entry Addition To 5%, Cites Double TaxationPremium
- Claiming Full TDS Credit Without Reporting Entire Income Is Underreporting, Not Misreporting: ITAT Premium
- ITAT Quashes Rs 7.03 Crore Reassessment, Holds AO Cannot Make Additions Beyond Recorded Reasons for ReopeningPremium
- ITAT Condones 650-Day Delay in Matter of Unexplained Cash Deposits During Specified Bank Notes PeriodPremium
- ITAT Quashed Reassessment Proceedings as Section 148 Notices Issued Beyond Statutory Time LimitPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








