Additions for on-money u/s 69 cannot be made solely on third-party loose papers or builder statements without direct corroborative evidence linking assessee, her name, or relevant year.

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi [CIT (A)) has erred in upholding the validity of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(2) (4). Mumbai (JAO), whereas the assessment order so passed is clearly invalid, bad-in-law and contrary to the provisions of law. Appellant prays for quashing the assessment order so passed.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the id CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 54,10,800/-u/s 69 of the Act in the name of on-money payment for purchase of shop. whereas neither any such on-money was paid by appellant nor there has been any finding of any such on-money paid by the appellant. Addition so made and sustained is wrong, unjustified and contrary to the settled law. Appellant prays for deleting this wrong and unjustified addition.

3. Without prejudice to generality of ground no '2' above, that the Id. CIT (A) has erred in not considering the case laws relied upon by the appellant (assessee) in the written appeal submission filed before Id. CIT (A) and in upholding the addition by taking the view contrary to the law laid down in the case laws so relied upon.

4. Without prejudice to generality of ground no '2' above, that the Id. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the A.O of Rs. 54,10,800/- on the basis of seized material of third party, whereas said seized materials pertain to earlier years and there is nothing in the impugned seized material to infer on-money payment by the appellant and that too in the year under appeal.

(5) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify any ground of appeal.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual and filed her return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 declaring income of Rs. 54,10,800/-. Case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the assessing officer (AO) recorded that a search action under section 132 was carried out in Surana Group in Surat on 08.12.2023. In the said search action, certain incriminating material of unaccounted transaction pertaining to real estate business of Surana Group was found and seized from the residential premises of Pawankumar Rameshwarlal Lahoti. Out of such incriminating material, certain evidence pertains to project “IFC” that is international finance centre, which is commercial complex. As per the information available on GujRera website, it consists of one tower having 195 units. The project was developed in Vesu area of Surat. The AO also received information from DDIT, Unit-4, Surat that assessee purchase a unit in the project developed by Surana group and has paid on-money as. During the assessment, the assessing officer issued show cause notice which were complied by the assessee with relevant documentary evidence. The AO in para 5.1 of assessment order recorded that in the search action on Surana Group, various evidences were found wherein amounts were written in coded form with suppression ranging from one zero to seven zeros. In the search action, statement of Snehkumar Chhajer was recorded, who disclosed and decoded such zeros. The AO further recorded that financial year