| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Addition u/s 69A based solely on builder’s seized data (on-money) – sustainable? |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | B Goel |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | natural justice, undisclosed income |
| Date: | March 27, 2026 |
Respected Members,
I seek guidance on the sustainability of an addition made under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE in a real estate transaction case.
Brief facts:
- A property was purchased from a builder, and all payments were made through banking channels.
- A search u/s 132 was conducted on the builder group.
- During post-search investigation, seized Tally data / internal records allegedly showed certain buyers having paid “on-money”.
- The assessee’s name appears in such data against an alleged cash payment.
- Based solely on this third-party data, the AO has made an addition u/s 69A.
Key issues:
- No cash was found from the assessee.
- No statement or admission by the assessee regarding cash payment.
- No independent corroborative evidence (such as receipts, agreements, or cash trail).
- The assessee was not provided copies of the seized material relied upon.
- Cross-examination of the builder / concerned persons was requested but denied.
- The addition is based purely on third-party seized records.
Queries:
- Whether such an addition u/s 69A can be sustained solely on the basis of third-party seized data, without any corroborative evidence?
- Whether denial of cross-examination in such cases violates principles of natural justice?
- Are there any recent ITAT / High Court rulings where similar additions (based on builder “on-money” data) have been deleted in the case of buyers?
- Any guidance on strong appeal grounds in such situations?
I came across a recent ITAT ruling (Ahmedabad) reported in media where relief was granted in a similar “on-money” case due to lack of direct evidence. Request members to kindly share relevant judgments or precedents supporting the assessee’s case.
Thanks in advance for your insights.
It is well settled that an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE cannot be made relying solely on a dumb document found with a third-party without corroborative evidence. Also, cross-examination opportunity to the assessee before relying on such document is mandatory under the principles of natural justice.
In Bharti Jayanti Jain vs ACIT ITA No. 7323/MUM/2025 (AY: 2017-18) all the important judgements are considered and the law is summed up as under:
“6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find that the addition for on-money payment has been done in this case without any corroborative material found from assessee. The addition is solely based upon some statement of the builder. Such additions are not sustainable on the touchstone of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs P.V Kalyanasundasram 164 Taxman 78 (SC). Moreover there is nothing on record to suggest that so called electronic evidence collected by revenue at the builder’s office is compliant with the requirement of section 65B of Evidence Act regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authority below and direct that the addition be deleted.”