LOKMANI SHARMA,DELHI V. ITO WARD-68(1) , NEW DELHI

ITA 6234/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Lokmani Sharma against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld an addition of Rs. 21 lakhs to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2012-13. This addition was purportedly made on the basis of a complaint filed by the assessee's daughter, alleging atrocities by her husband and in-laws, which indirectly suggested the assessee's involvement in a lavish expenditure for her marriage. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee had not admitted to any such expenditure in his complaint and that the expenditure claimed was exempt under section 56(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788288 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V. RAJKUMAR
• Section: 144; 56(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6234/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Lokmani Sharma, 56-E, Pocket-A2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-68(1), Delhi PAN: BCHPS8831B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Indore’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071970596(1), dated 08.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It is noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the sum of Rs.21 lakhs as spend by the assessee/appellant on the occasion of his daughter’s marriage performed in the relevant financial year. Learned departmental Assessee by Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6234/Del/2025 2 | P a g e representative’s case therefore is that the impugned addition has been made in light of a complaint filed by the assessee’s daughter herself before the police authorities alleging her husband and in- laws to have committed atrocities after solemnization of her marriage. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the additions. The Revenue could hardly dispute that no such complaint had been made by the assessee wherein he had ever admitted any such expenditure before the police authorities. It is reiterated that his daughter in fact had filed the original complaint alleging an expenditure of Rs. 21 lakhs on the occasion of the marriage which itself exempt under section 56(2) of the Act. This tribunal therefore finds no merit in the impugned addition made by both the lower authorities in the assessee’s hands since already covered in the foregoing specific provision. Deleted accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6234/Del/2025 3 | P a g e Dated: 24th November, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "