SARIKA SACHDEVA, NEW DELHI V. ACIT Central circle-01, NEW DELHI

ITA 66/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8449 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69A; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.66/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2015-16) ITA No.67/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2016-17) ITA No.68/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2017-18) Sarika Sachdeva 36, Godavari Apartments Alaknanda, Near Yamuna Apartment, Kalkaji New Delhi-110 019 PAN-AUAPS 0438C Vs. ACIT Central Circle-01 New Delhi-110 055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv., Sh. Rahul Prabhakar, Adv. & Ms. Sweta Bansal, CA Respondent by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/02/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: All these appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. 2 ITA No.66 to 68/Del/2021 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT CIT(A)”, for short] dated 28/08/2020, 15/01/2021 & 28/08/2020, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18 respectively. 2. The following grounds taken in these appeals are as under: ITA No.66/Del/2021 1. The Order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts of the case and as per law, the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the returned income during the course of assessment u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act, which are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search on the appellant, and contrary to the ratio of various judicial precedents which have held that the scope of assessment which are not pending at the time of conducting of search u/s 153A of the Act, encompasses additions/ disallowance, based on incriminating material found during the course of search only. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the Rs.59,8 addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 1,99,500/- on account (Appro of deemed rental income. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. That because of the COVID pandemic, the appeal could not be filed within the lim period prescribed in the Income Tax Act. However, the Appellant understands t Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. C Extending Limitation due to COVID-19 is still operative and therefore nos application for condonation of delay is being filed with the present appeal. 3 ITA No.66 to 68/Del/2021 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT ITA No.67/Del/2021 1. The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO to the extent of Rs.5,22,900/- on account of deemed rental income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.28,40,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained money in the form of cash found to be deposited in the bank account of the Appellant/Assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. ITA No.68/Del/2021 1. The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs.6,76,200/- on account of deemed rental income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.7,80,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained money in the form of cash found to be deposited in the bank account of the Appellant/Assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 4 ITA No.66 to 68/Del/2021 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT That because of the COVID pandemic, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period prescribed in the Income Tax Act. However, the Appellant understands that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.03/2020 Extending Limitation due to Covid-19 is still operative and therefore no separate application for condonation of delay is being filed with the present appeal. 3. The details of additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2017-18 are as under:- S.No. Particulars Ownership A.Y 2015-16 A.Y 2016-17 A.Y 2017-18 i Flat No. 45/1108,DDA Flats, Kalkaji Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva - 33,000 - ii Flat No. 24/770, DDA Flats, Kalkaji Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva 84,000 - 1,08,000 iii Shop No. 8, Ramji Lal complex Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva 96,000 - 1,08,000 iv Flat No. 34/931, DDA Flats, Kalkaji Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva 33,000 39,000 42,000 v 1779/7 Govind Puri Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva 72,000 78,000 84,000 vi GF, D-596, C R Park, Delhi Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva - 2,76,000 2,88,000 Vii Basement, D- 596, C R Park, Delhi Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva - 2,76,000 2,88,000 viii Shop No. 32, DDA Complex Market, Govindpuri, Kalkaji Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva - 45,000 48,000 5 ITA No.66 to 68/Del/2021 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the husband of the assessee Sh. Naveen Sahcdeva has already offered tax in his Income Tax Return in respect of the above properties u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as u/s 153A of the Act, which has been duly accepted by the Settlement Commission vide its order dated 28/09/2023. The assessee has also produced property wise breakup of rental income of Sh. Naveen Sachdeva for Assessment Year 2015-16 onward at page No. 123-125 of the paper book. 5. Considering the fact that the husband of the assessee has already offered the rental income of the aforesaid properties which has been accepted by the Settlement Commission which is evident from order of the Settlement Commission and the property wise break up of rental income of Sh. Naveen Sachdeva for Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards. If the subject additions are sustained by confirming the order of Ld.CIT (A), it will amounts to double taxation, therefore, the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in the above said captioned appeals are hereby deleted, ordered accordingly. 6 ITA No.66 to 68/Del/2021 Sarika Sachdeva Vs. ACIT 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 66/Del/2021, 67/Del/2021 & 68/Del/2021 are allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 29th February, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R.KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29/02/2024 Pk/R.N Sr.ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI