IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1404/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22)

Dy. CIT-31, Sanjay Bhutan Delhi.

G-174, Preet Vihar Vs.

Delhi-110029.

PAN-ADGPB2181A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv.

Department by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A) in short] -30, New Delhi dated 31.01.2024, for assessment year 2021-22 in appeal No.

10126/2020-21.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income originally on 05.020.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 1,40,020/- which was revised on 18.02.2022 at a figure of Rs.19,09,640/- A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) was carried out in the case of Hans group of cases on 06.01.2021 where in the WhatsApp chats found from the mobile phone of Mr. Praveen Kr. Jain seized, an agreement to sell was found which is in relation to the purchases of residential property by the assessee jointly with his wife Smt. Ritu Bhuttan for a total consideration of Rs. 1.85 crores. This agreement was unsigned and unexecuted. Assessee along with his wife has purchased an immovable property for which the agreement was registered at Rs.61.00 lacs. The AO by alleging that the actual sale consideration paid was of Rs. 1.85 crores, hold the payment of balance consideration of Rs. 1.24 crores as paid in cash out of undisclosed cash and made the addition of assessee’s share of 50% which comes to Rs. 62.00 lacs in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dt. 31/12/2022. Against such order assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal thus the present appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal.

3. At the outset, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the document referred by the AO is neither signed nor executed and was a photo of agreement to sell found in the Whatsapp chat in the mobile phone of third party Shri Praveen K. Jain. Ld. AR further argued that if the said document is treated as document u/s 2(22AA) of the Act, the same should be considered in the case of the assessee only in the proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Act. However, in the instant case, the addition is made in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, thus is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. He further submitted that similar addition of Rs. 62.00 lacs based on the same WhatsApp chat was also made in the hands of Smt. Ritu Bhuttan, spouse of the assessee, who is the co-owner of the residential house under reference, where the same were deleted by the coordinate of bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 1439/Del/2024. Ld. AR thus requested for the deletion of the additions made u/s 143(3)

of the Act.

4. Per contra, ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the contents of the agreement found in the mobile chat pertained to the purchases transaction carried out by the assessee. Thus, the action of the AO in treating the sale consideration mentioned therein as the actual sale consideration and making addition by treating the differential amount of declared consideration stated in the registered sale deed and the said agreement to sell as cash paid out of undisclosed sources is correct.

She, therefore, prayed for the confirmation of the addition so made.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. From the perusal of assessment order, it is seen that no search was carried out in the case of the assessee and the material found / seized from the possession third party was made basis for making addition in the hands of the assessee. Such material was found in WhatsApp chat of mobile phone seized from the possession of Shr