IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chandulal Banthia [ITA No.2324], The Dy. Commissioner of Amit Banthia [ITA No.2325] , Income Tax, No.107, 7^th Main, 3^rd Stage, Central Circle – 1(1), 4^th Block, Basaveshwar Nagar, Bangalore.

Bangalore – 560 079.

PAN - ABIPB 8485 F - ABGPA 0975 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.R Pradeep, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals are by the assessees directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 13.11.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19.

2. The assessee along with his son purchased a property at Koramangala, Bangalore, under a registered sale deed dated 04.10.2017. The consideration mentioned in the document was ₹3,94,65,600. The entire amount was paid by cheque through banking channels. On 14.11.2017, a search was carried out in the case of M/s Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., the vendor of the said property. During the search, cash of ₹3.72 crore was found in a locker of the company. In the course of the search proceedings, the Managing Director of the company, Shri Kapil Shah, made a statement that apart from the cheque payment recorded in the deed, he had also received cash of ₹4.25 crore from the assessee and his son as part of the property sale consideration. The company’s accountant, Shri Salim Khan, also gave a statement that he was present when the cash was allegedly handed over at the residence of Shri Kapil Shah.

3. Relying on these statements, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee and his son had together paid a sum of ₹4.25 crore in cash against the purchase of the property which was not accounted. Since the property was jointly purchased, the share of the assessee was taken at 50 percent, i.e. ₹2,12,67,500. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee.

4. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the admission of Shri Kapil Shah, the supporting statement of the accountant, and the fact that the locker was opened and operated just a day before the registration of the property gave credence to the allegation of cash payment. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that M/s Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd. itself had admitted in its own assessment that cash had been received as part of the sale consideration and had offered the same as capital gains. According to the ld. CIT(A), this corroborated the case of the Assessing Officer. The denial by the assessee was found to be weak and unconvincing. The addition was therefore confirmed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the entire transaction was through banking channels and fully reflected in the registered sale deed. It was argued that the sale deed, being a registered document, has high evidentiary value and cannot be brushed aside on the basis of uncorroborated oral statements. The ld. AR pointed out that there was no evidence of any cash withdrawal or possession of such a huge amount of cash by the assessee. No material was found in the search of the assessee. The cash was found in the premises of the vendor, and therefore the presumption under section 132(4A) and section 292C applied only against the vendor. The assessee could not be saddled with the burden of explaining cash not found in his possession.

6.1 The ld. AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer never confronted the assessee with the statement of Shri Kapil Shah at the time of assessment. No opportunity of cross-examination was given. This was a clear violation of principles of natural justice