In a significant ruling in Sanjeet Kumar Kedarnath Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal deleted a ₹90 lakh addition made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act after finding that the allegation was based solely on loose papers recovered from a third party.
What was the dispute?
The taxpayer had jointly purchased a commercial unit from M/s Roshni Enterprises through a registered agreement for ₹50 lakh. The payments were made through banking channels and the transaction was duly documented.
However, during a search on the GNP Group, the Income Tax Department recovered loose papers allegedly recording "on-money" received in various property transactions. Based on those papers, the Assessing Officer alleged that the taxpayer had paid ₹90 lakh in cash over and above the registered consideration and added the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A.
The taxpayer denied making any cash payment and argued that:
- the seized papers belonged to the builder,
- he neither authored nor possessed them,
- no cash was found with him, and
- every payment for the property was made through banking channels.
Why did the ITAT rule in the taxpayer's favour?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue had failed to produce any independent evidence linking the taxpayer to the alleged cash payment.
The ITAT highlighted several shortcomings in the department's case:
- no money was found in the taxpayer's possession,
- the taxpayer was neither the author nor the custodian of the seized documents,
- the loose papers were recovered from a third party,
- there was no corroborative evidence of any cash transfer, and
- the taxpayer was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon.
The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in K.P. Varghese v. ITO, reiterating that the burden of proving taxability lies on the Revenue. A taxpayer cannot be asked to prove a negative, namely that no cash payment was made.
Further, referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in the Common Cause (Sahara Diaries) case and CBI v. V.C. Shukla, the Tribunal noted that loose sheets, by themselves, do not constitute reliable evidence unless supported by independent corroboration.
Accordingly, the ITAT deleted the entire ₹90 lakh addition.
What does the ruling mean for property buyers?
The decision does not prevent the Income Tax Department from investigating alleged "on-money" transactions. However, it makes clear that a tax addition cannot rest solely on documents recovered from a builder or another third party.
If the department seeks to invoke Section 69A, it must establish a direct link between the taxpayer and the alleged undisclosed payment through independent evidence such as financial records, admissions, digital communications or other corroborative material.