ITAT Delhi: No Section 69A Addition Where Buyers Pay Developer Directly; ₹18.63 Cr Addition Deleted in Sachin Gaur Case

April 24, 2026 : The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹18.63 crore made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, ruling that amounts directly paid by subsequent purchasers to a developer cannot be treated as unexplained money in the hands of the original allottee in the absence of any demonstrated benefit.

The ruling came in ACIT v. Sachin Gaur (ITA No. 7244/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022–23), decided on 24 April 2026 by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal.

The case arose from an assessment where the Assessing Officer treated ₹18.63 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee had initially booked a property—Sport Villa-17 at Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida—pursuant to an allotment letter dated 30 March 2012, against which he paid ₹1.99 crore. Subsequently, an offer of possession dated 15 February 2015 fixed the total property value at ₹18.63 crore, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹16.64 crore.

Later, the assessee transferred his rights in the property to two buyers, Mr. Yatharth Attrey and Ms. Neena Tyagi, through an agreement dated 7 October 2021. The Tribunal noted that the balance consideration of ₹16.64 crore was paid directly by the buyers to the developer, and the property was transferred in their names.

Despite these facts, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of ₹18.63 crore as unexplained money. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, which was challenged by the Revenue.

Affirming the appellate order, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish that the assessee had received or derived any benefit from the disputed amount. It observed that a substantial portion of the consideration was never received by the assessee but was instead directly paid to the developer by the ultimate buyers.

The Bench also relied on confirmations obtained under Section 133(6) from both the developer and the buyers, which substantiated the genuineness of the transaction. In the absence of any contrary material, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had incorrectly invoked Section 69A on what was a duly evidenced transfer of rights in immovable property.

Holding that no unexplained money could be attributed to the assessee in such circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of the addition.