GURPREET SINGH DHILLON,INDIA V. DCIT, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(2)(2), DELHI

ITA 3600/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Gurpreet Singh Dhillon against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an addition of Rs. 4,35,457 to his income for the assessment year 2022-23. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to a discrepancy between the rent declared in the income tax return and the rent specified in the lease deed. The assessee argued that the amount had already been taxed in earlier years, and thus, its re-taxation in the current year would constitute double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the excess rent declared in previous years offset the amount in question, and thus, the addition was deleted.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832059 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Biswas Manik v. Income-tax Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.C. Hospital, PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER KUMAR JATAV
• Assessee Lawyers: VANDANA GOPAL SHARDA; LAVANYA BAHL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3600/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2022-23] Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Kothi No. 2, Dear Baba Jaimal Singh, BEAS, Amritsar, Punjab-143204 Vs DCIT, Circle INT. TAX 1(2)(2), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. PAN- AFQPD5302R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Ms. Vandana Gopal Sharda, CA & Ms. Lavanya Bahl, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi-42, dated 03.03.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of the assessment order dated 24.04.2024 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 3600/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon 2 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case: During the year the assessee had earned rental Income from leased out property for the year to M/s Indo Rama Synthetics. The AO noted that as per Lease Deed Gross Total Rent comes to Rs. 1,79,26,200/- for 12 months (rent in the year 4 to year 6) @ Rs.14,93,850/-per month but the gross rent offered to tax was Rs. 1,74,90,743/- in the ITR /Computation filed by the assessee. Hence, a Show cause notice was issued from by the AO vide letter dated 15.02.2024 and the relevant extracts of the show cause notice are reproduced as under:- 3.1 It is noted that as per Lease Deed Gross Total Rent comes to Rs. 1.79.26.200 being 12 month rent in the year 4 to year 6 @Rs. 14,93.850/- per month. The Gross rent received offered to tax is Rs. 1,74.90.743/- in the ITR / Computation filed by the assessee. Therefore assessee is required to show cause why the amount of Rs. 4,35,457/- should not be added to the Gross Rent received under the head Income from House Property. In view of the above, total variation proposed is Rs. 4,35,457/- The assessee is required to show cause why an amount of Rs. 4,35,457/- should not be added to the is Gross Rent Received under the head Income from House Property u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act. 2.1 The AO noted that assessee made submission vide his letter dated 22/02/2024 and considered and the same and reproduced the para 5. 1 of the response of the assessee as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 3600/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon 3 “5.1 Point No. 3-3.1 - Regarding the above variation it is submitted that as per Lease Deed in year 5, Gross Total Rent comes to Rs. 1,79,26,200 being 12 month rent in the year 4 to year 6 @Rs.14,93,850 per month. Whereas the assessee has offered to tax Rs, 1,74,90,743 and there is a difference of Rs. 4,35,457 in the gross rent. Kindly refer to the Form 26AS received from the Government Portal of Income Tax. The Tenant Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Limited has shown rent paid as Rs. 1,74,90.743 and TDS of Rs 55,27,092. The assessee has declared the above amount received from the tenant as Gross Rent Received under Income from House Property. Accordingly same has been shown as Gross Rent under the Schedule HP inadvertently.” 2.2 The AO did not accept the above submission of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 4,35,457/-. The relevant extract of the assessment order is as under: “ The submission of the assessee was perused. The assessee has declared rental income of Rs. 1,74,90,743/- instead of Rs. 1,79,90,743/- as per Lease Deed between the assessee and the tenant (Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd). The assessee has itself accepted that it has received rent of Rs. 1,79,90,743/- instead of Rs. 1,74,90,743/-, as declared by the assessee. Hence the amount of Rs. 4,35,457/- is added back to the income of the assessee as rental income. The penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income….” 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by endorsing the finding of the AO. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle 1(2) (2), International Taxation New Delhi, AND the addition confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi-42 are bad in law AND on facts, AND are against the principles of natural justice, AND therefore deserve to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 3600/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon 4 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 4,35,457/- under the head \"Income from House Property,\" AND the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the said addition without properly appreciating the facts AND submissions made by the appellant assessee. The said addition has resulted in double addition of the same amount to the total income, which is unjustified. The authorities below have grossly erred in law AND on facts in making AND confirming such an addition, which is bad in law, contrary to facts, AND in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The addition, therefore, deserves to be deleted. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, DELETE, modify, AND/OR withdraw any of the above ground(s) of appeal at OR before the time of hearing.” 5. The Ld. AR explained the facts and submitted that the amount of Rs. 4,35,457/- was already offered to tax in earlier assessment years and an excess rent of Rs. 7,46,925/- was declared till A.Y. 2021-22 and, therefore, again taxing the said amount would lead to impressible double taxation. In this regard, the Ld. AR also filed a reconciliation statement to support the claim of the assessee. The relevant submissions of the assessee in para no. 4 to 6 are reproduced as under: “4. Assessee submitted before CIT(A) that in AY 2018-19, being the first year of tenancy, advance rent of Rs. 45,46,500/- i.e. 3.5 months, was received, on which TDS was inadvertently claimed in the ITR as it appeared in Form 26AS. Since the time for revising the return had expired, the assessee surrendered this amount to tax in AY 2018-19 in appeal, though it actually pertained to AY 2019-20. Consequently, there were short adjustments in subsequent years. A detailed reconciliation, supported by Form 26AS and ITRs, clearly demonstrates that till AY 2021-22, the assessee had already declared excess rent of Rs. 7,46,925/-. Thus, sustaining the impugned addition once again in AY 2022-23 leads to impermissible double taxation. 5. The reason being that the ITRs were filed by different consultants and staff. Moreover, during the COVID-19 period and lockdown, the newly appointed senior consultant was hospitalized and subsequently expired. Refer for Lease Deed at Pg no. 3 to 15, Rent Payable at Pg. no. 8, Rent Reconciliation Table at Pg no. 36, ITR at Pg no. 63, ITAT Order for AY 2018-19 at Pg no. 71 to 80 & Appeal Effect Order for AY 2018-19 at Pg no. 81 to 83 of the PB. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 3600/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon 5 Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,35,457/- in respect of rent variation under \"Income from House Property\" results in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. 6. Reference is made to the following judicial precedents where it has been categorically held that the same income cannot be taxed twice: (i) Biswas Manik v. Income-tax Officer [2025] 177 taxmann.com 369 (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench \"SMC\") (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.C. Hospital [2022] 142 taxmann.com 122 (ITAT Chennai Bench \"B\") Further in PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal [2024] 161 taxmann.com 813 (SC) -held that additions made without properly examining the evidence furnished by the assessee cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned addition ignores the reconciled position, Form 26AS, and the settled principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice.” 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this regard, the tabular chart submitted by the assessee is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 3600/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon 6 7.1 On perusal of the above chart, it is seen that the assessee had declared a sum of Rs. 45,46,000/- and Rs. 97,425/- of excess rent in AY 2018-19 and 2021-22 and short rent of Rs. 38,97,500/- in AY 2009-10, thus, declaring an excess of Rs. 7,46,925/- till AY 2021-22 and the said amount is in excess of Rs. 4,35,457/-, which was added by the AO. Further, the explanation of the assessee about the above excess / less rent being declared in the respective assessment years is also acceptable. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the taxing of the said amount of Rs. 4,35,457/- would amount to double taxation. Accordingly, we hold that the said addition of Rs. 4,35,457/- is not sustainable and the same is deleted. Ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 8. Ground no. 1 and 3 of the appeal are general in nature an does not require any separate adjudication. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHIR PAREEK] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 21 .01.2026. Pooja Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 3600/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon 7 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "