" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2144/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mitulkumar Pravinchandra Gohel A-403, Rajyash Reyansh, Opp. Silver Flora, South Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007, Gujarat [PAN : AQAPG3409P] Vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380051. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Nitin Pathak, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:- “Brief arguments: Para 6.1.1 of CIT's order of is reproduced herewith. As per the available information on the Insight Portal, provided by the Investigation Wing of the Department, the assessee purchased immoveable property during the year from Builder amounting Rs.31,72,000/-, for which assessee also paid \"on money\" amounting Rs. 3,05,000/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2144/AHD/2025, AY-2019-20 Mitulkumar Pravinchandra Gohel Vs. ITO - 2– The amount of sale consideration of such property was duly confirmed from the sale deed provided by the assessee and further assessee also admitted making such purchase along with his brother, who made payments in cash along with the cheques issued by the assessee from his bank account. The CIT, assumed insight portal for receiving the amounting to Rs 3172000/-. payment qua our unit CIT assumed Rs. 305000/- paid as on money. Please refer our reply Para 5 of page no 3-6/9, our reply is copy pasted but no application of mind is made for the same., and there is not mention of anything on the subject. Please refer AO's order para 3.8.1 page no 13 of 15. In absence of any plausible explanation submitted by the assessee with the help of substantiating documents, it is established that the information furnished by the Investigation Wing of the Department, is correct and assessee in fact made cash payments of Rs.3,05,000/- towards the purchase of the property which are over and above the payments made in cheques, the sources of which remained unexplained. Without any supporting documents, it is considered that all the payments for the purchase of such property were made by the assessee and property was then registered in his and his brother's name jointly. Furthermore, the assessee himself accepted the variations in such investments made in immoveable property and hence the same is treated as \"Unexplained Investments\" from unknown sources of income as per provisions of section 69. of the Income Tax Act charged u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The facts of the case is that property is jointly purchased with brother. The on-money is assumed at Rs 500 per sq ft multiplied by 610 sq ft. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2144/AHD/2025, AY-2019-20 Mitulkumar Pravinchandra Gohel Vs. ITO - 3– 3. As per the information received from the Investigation Wing, it was found that the assessee had entered into a transaction for the purchase of an immovable property from Rayash Buildcon, wherein an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- was allegedly paid in cash as \"on-money\" over and above the consideration recorded in the sale deed. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the impugned cash payments represented statutory expenses such as stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental expenses. However, the Assessing Officer observed that incriminating documents seized during the search conducted in the case of the builder, coupled with the statement of the builder's accountant, indicated that the impugned cash payment represented additional consideration paid towards the purchase of the property. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the cash payments were towards statutory charges. Despite being afforded sufficient opportunities, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2144/AHD/2025, AY-2019-20 Mitulkumar Pravinchandra Gohel Vs. ITO - 4– assessee could not satisfactorily explain the source and nature of the cash payments or produce supporting evidence in support of the explanation offered. Accordingly, considering the material gathered during the course of investigation and assessment proceedings, as well as the assessee's acceptance of the proposed variation during the show-cause proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the cash payment of Rs.3,05,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act and brought the same to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: 6.1.2 I have carefully considered the assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions furnished during the appellate proceedings As per information received through the Insight Portal from the Investigation Wing of the Department, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the year under consideration for Rs. 31,72,000/- from a builder and had also made an additional cash payment of Rs. 3,05,000/- as 'on-money. The sale consideration as reflected in the sale deed was verified, and the assessee admitted the purchase jointly with his brother. It was also noted that while the cheque payments were made from the assessee's bank account. certain cash payments were made in connection with the transaction. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with seized documents obtained from the builder during a search, which recorded details of cash payments. The builder, in his statement recorded on oath, had admitted to receiving cash from purchasers towards \"on-money\" for flats sold in his projects. The assessee. however, denied making such cash payments, contending that any cash transactions represented payments towards stamp duty, registration, and other incidental expenses. The Assessing Officer observed that no documentary evidence was furnished in support of this contention, and several queries raised in this regard remained unanswered. It was further noted that though the assessee claimed to be a 50% co- owner along with his brother, he failed to substantiate whether any Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2144/AHD/2025, AY-2019-20 Mitulkumar Pravinchandra Gohel Vs. ITO - 5– portion of the cash payments was made by the brother or whether the same related to statutory dues. The assessee also did not furnish the loan or bank statements as called for by the Assessing Officer. In view of the failure to substantiate the source and nature of the cash payments, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had indeed made an unaccounted cash payment of Rs. 3,05,000/- towards \"on- money, which constituted unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, chargeable under section 115BBE. Accordingly, a variation of Rs. 3,05,000/- was proposed, to which the assessee, in his final reply dated 06.01.2025, accepted the addition but requested waiver of interest and penalty under section 271AAC on the ground that the cash was sourced from family savings. 6.1.3 The appellant has not produced any new or additional evidence to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer or to substantiate that the impugned cash payment of Rs. 3,05,000/-was not made as \"on-money.\" Further it is seen that the appellant admitted. *AO has not considered the cash payment to builder for stamp duty and other charges asked by him. And also, source of payment was from accumulated earlier years savings\" However no evidence of the source of the accumulated savings has been furnished. The explanation offered remains unsubstantiated and is not supported by any credible documentary proof. In view of the foregoing and considering the material gathered during assessment proceedings, the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the said amount as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act and taxing it under section 115BBE is found to be justified. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed, and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the present appeal stands DISMISSED. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the addition of Rs.3,05,000/- has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) as no evidence of the source of the accumulated savings has been furnished. We find that the argument of the assessee that Rs.3,05,000/- is the total cash in hand of the entire family members and also the fact the assessee is not the sole owner of the property and holds only 50% the cash contribution is only Rs.1,50,000/-. We hold that the assessee’s submission that he has cash in hand of Rs. 1,50,000/- is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2144/AHD/2025, AY-2019-20 Mitulkumar Pravinchandra Gohel Vs. ITO - 6– acceptable. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.3,05,000/-. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 17.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 17.07.2026 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयुƅ(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊफाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "