In
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25 v. Faridabad Presswell
Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi, pronounced on 09 January 2026), the Delhi Bench of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal challenging the
deletion of an addition of ₹8 crore made on account of alleged unexplained cash
investment under search proceedings.
The
case arose from a search conducted on a third party and the JBM Group, during
which certain electronic records were found indicating alleged cash payments in
relation to land purchases. Based on the seized excel data, the Assessing
Officer made an addition in Assessment Year 2015–16, treating the alleged cash
component as unexplained investment of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals), after detailed examination, recorded a finding that both the
cheque payments and the alleged cash payments related to Financial Year 2013–14
and, therefore, could not be assessed in AY 2015–16.
Before
the Tribunal, the Revenue contended that the seized material constituted
incriminating evidence and justified the addition. The assessee, while
supporting the order of the CIT(A), also invoked Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to
raise jurisdictional objections relating to proceedings under Sections 153C and
153D. The Tribunal rejected the additional grounds raised under Rule 27,
holding that such issues had neither been specifically raised nor decided
against the assessee at the first appellate stage.
On
merits, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A), observing that although
the seized material could not be treated as a dumb document and did indicate
cash transactions, the factual determination clearly established that the
transactions pertained to an earlier assessment year. Relying on settled
principles and noting the Supreme Court’s decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell
Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained in an
incorrect assessment year merely on the basis of search material.
Accordingly,
the Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s
appeal.
SOURCE LINK
https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1768200466-VhfAWE-1-TO.pdf
Disclaimer
This
content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only.
Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It
is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The
author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this
content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment