PARVEEN GUPTA,NEW DELHI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 2382/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by co-owners Parveen Gupta and Gautam Gupta against the orders of the CIT(Appeals) sustaining additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions were based on the difference between the property value shown in the sale deed and the fair market value determined by the DVO, categorized as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found procedural errors in the assessment process, including an incorrect assumption that the assessees had sold the property, and noted the insignificant difference in valuation. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents from the Delhi High Court, which held that minor variations in property valuation do not justify additions under such circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786963 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal, CIT vs. Aerens Infrastructure & Technology Ltd., Anand Banwarilal Adhukia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Me & Mummy Hospital vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT vs. Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Sargam Cinema vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIMISHA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGINI HANDA; DEEPANSHU KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law; Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Valuation report; Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 143(3); 11; 132; 153A; 69; 234B

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2382/Del/2025 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2020-21 PARVEEN GUPTA H 240, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. PAN No.AAOPG3625N बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi. अपीलाथ\u0014 Appellant \u0016\u0017यथ\u0014/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2383/Del/2025 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2020-21 GAUTAM GUPTA H.No.97, 1st Floor, G Block, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. PAN No.AJJPG3284A बनाम Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi. अपीलाथ\u0014 Appellant \u0016\u0017यथ\u0014/Respondent Assessee by Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocate & Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.09.2025 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/Pronouncement on 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. These two appeals are filed by the assessees who are the co- owners of a property against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-30 dated 31.03.2025 for the AY 2020-21 in sustaining Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 2 the addition made by the Assessing Officer being the difference between the value of property shown in the sale deed and fair market value determined by the DVO as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Since the issue in both these appeals is relating to valuation of property having 50% share as joint owners both the appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessees in these appeals raised the following common grounds of appeals: 1. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the income Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") is patently illegal, erroneous and bad in law and on facts. 2. That on die facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,49,500/- made by the Lei. AO being difference between the value of property shown in the safe deed and fair market value determined by the District Valuation Officer Delhi (“DVO”) on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the difference between the safe consideration in sale deed and the Valuation as per DVO report is insignificant and does not warrant any addition as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition even though no incriminating material or evidence suggesting unexplained investment in the property was Sound during search or otherwise. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 3 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO without appreciating or verifying the crucial fact that the Appellant had actually purchased the property in question and had not sold it. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that section 69 could not be invoked as the investments made by the Appellant are duly recorded in books of accounts and no out of books investments were made by the Appellant. 7. Thai on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that valuation report of the DVO was never confronted to the Appellant during the assessment proceedings and no opportunity to being heard was granted before DVO. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has re to appreciate that no show cause notice was issued before making the addition to the total income. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the approval granted by Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-8, New Delhi u/s 153D of the Act is mechanical in nature and without application of mind. 10. That the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A) is violative of principles of natural justice. 11. That the Id. ClT(A) has erred in sustaining the initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 12. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. 13. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, resign, forge or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice.” 3. We first take up the appeal of the assessee in the case of Shri Gautam Gupta as the facts are identical in both the appeals. Shri Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 4 Gautam Gupta filed his return of income on 07.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,92,51,750/-. During the AY 2020-21 the assessee had purchased residential building along with Shri Parveen Gupta bearing property no. BP-22, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total sale consideration of Rs.9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.09.2019 and the assessee had 50% share in it. On 12.02.2021 a search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee and the assessment for the impugned assessment year was completed on 09.05.2022 u/s 153A read with section 143(3) by making an addition of Rs.8,49,500/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of difference between the value of property shown in the sale deed and fair market value as determined by the DVO as narrated in the assessment order at pages 3 & 4. As stated in the assessment order the details of the property i.e. circle rate, sale consideration, DVO valuation and the difference between DVO and sale consideration are as under: Property Description Circle Rate/Stamp Duty Value Total Sales Consideration (A) Value determined by the DVO (B) Addition made by the Ld.AO being difference between column (A) & (B) BP-22, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. 9,70,06,834 (page 84 of PBK) 9,90,00,000 (page 49 of PBK) 10,06,99,100 (page 2 & 3 of Assessment order) 8,49,500 (16,99,100/2) (page 3 & 4 of assessment order) After arriving the difference between the sale consideration and the value determined by the DVO at Rs.16,99,100/- the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 5 made an addition of Rs.8,49,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% share in the property and the balance 50% of Rs.8,49,500/- was added in the hands of the co-owner i.e. Parveen Gupta, as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.2 of grounds of appeal, submitted that reference to DVO is invalid for the reason that the AO merely suspected that value of the property at which it is purchased by the assessee was less than the fair market value. Ld. Counsel referring to the details narrated by the AO at pages 3 & 4 of assessment order submitted that the circle rate/stamp duty value of the property determined by the Sub- Registrar Office is 9,70,06,834/- and whereas the property was purchased for an amount of Rs.9,90,00,000/- which is more than the circle rate/stamp duty value and therefore there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the property was purchased below the market value. Reliance is placed and following case laws for the following propositions: “2. Reliance is placed on the following case laws for the following propositions: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 6 • There must be some material to show that the investment made by the assessee was outside the books. This, was a condition precedent for making a reference to the DVO. • A reference to the DVO be made only when a requirement is felt by the AO for making such reference. Requirement would arise or could be felt only when there is some material with the AO to show that whatever amount the assessee has shown is not correct or not reliable. The use of the word “require” is not superfluous but signifies a definite meaning whereby some preliminary formation of mind by the AO is necessary which requires him to make a reference to DVO u/s 142A. i. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013] 351 ITR 20 (Delhi) – para 5 ii. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aerens Infrastructure & Technology Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 61 (Delhi)-para 5 iii. Anand Banwarilal Adhukia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 – Gujarat HC-para 10 to 13 iv. Me & Mummy Hospital vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 45 taxmann.com 248 – Gujarat HC – para 10, 15 to 17 v. The Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Smt. Usha Rani Talla (ITA no.5698/Del/2014) para 10.06, 10.9” 5. Referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no addition for insignificant difference between the sale value and the valuation report of the DVO can be made by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel submitted that the difference between the sale consideration and the valuation report was merely Rs.16,99,000/- (10,06,99,100 – 9,90,00,000) i.e., 1.71% which is a very minor variation. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 7 Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2012) (25 taxmann.com 210). Referring to this decision Ld. Counsel stated that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that when the difference between cost of construction as per the books of account and estimated cost of construction as per DVO’s report was very minor i.e. 3.86% the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions to income of the assessee. Similarly the Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.416/Del/2022) dated 03.05.2024 submitted that the Hon’ble High Court placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, wherein the variation between the valuation as relied upon by the assessee and the DVO was just 2.54%. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessees the difference between the sale consideration and the valuation report was merely of Rs.16,99,100/- which is 1.71% and is a very minor variation and thus, there is no justification in making addition by the Assessing Officer treating such difference as an unexplained investment and making addition u/s 69 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 8 6. Referring to ground no.4 of grounds of appeal Ld. Counsel submitted that the addition was made without appreciating that no incriminating material or evidence suggesting unexplained investment was found during the course of search. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Ld. AO suspected that the value of the property at which it was purchased by the assessee was less than the market value and therefore a reference to the DVO for valuation of property was made on 17.03.2022 and the DVO estimated the value of the property at Rs.10,06,99,100/-. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the AO had merely relied upon the DVO’s report and he has not brought anything on record or any other material to indicate that the assessee had made investment in purchase of property over and above that declared in the sale deed. The Ld. Counsel submits that unless and until there is some other evidence to indicate that extra consideration had flown in the transaction of purchase of property, the report of the DVO cannot form the basis of any addition on the part of the Revenue. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case on hand there is no evidence other than the report of the DVO and therefore the same cannot be relied upon for making an addition. Placing reliance on the following judgments Ld. Counsel submitted that in all Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 9 these judgments it has been held that there must be a finding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the Revenue. It is only when this burden was discharged by the Revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value as given in the valuation report of the DVO. DVO report without any other material cannot form basis of making addition. Value of a property estimated by the DVO or the registered value can never be conclusive of the price finally bargained: - Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 10 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.9 of grounds of appeal submitted that assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act is invalid and mechanical approval. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that on the following occasions, the Assessee specifically brought to the notice of the Ld, AO that it had purchased the said property: i. Specifically replied by Assessee that the said property was purchased by him on 12.09.2019 and that no immovable property was sold during the year vide reply dated 20.12.2021 at page 20 of PBK; replies dated 2.02.2022, 23.01.2022 and 25.02.2022 at page 21, 35-36, 37-41 of PBK. ii. Vide reply dated 28.02.2022 filed before the Ld. AO the assessee specifically provided copy of agreement to sell, sale deed, affidavit of director of seller, bank statement of assessee showing source of purchase and payment made for purchase of said property and home loan sanction letter- refer page 37-94 of PBK Ld. Counsel submitted that despite the above evidences and replies filed, the Ld. AO has in the assessment order dated 09.05.2022 stated and believed that the Assessee had sold the said property (Para 6 of order) \"During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold u property in Delhi. As per information available with the Department, the market value of the land was very high as compared to the value shown in the sale deed. Sh Praveen Gupta and Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 11 Sh Gautam Gupta has sold property BP-22 (comprising of basement Floor, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor), West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs.9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 24.06.2019.5in this property, the assessee had total 50% share and this property was jointly sold by the assessee. The value of the property on which it was sold by the assessee was less than that of the market value for this reasons the above property was referred to the DVO on 17.03.2022 for valuation u/s 142A of the Income Tax Act to determine the fair market value as on date of sale.\" It is submitted that thereafter on 18.05.2022, the Ld. AO issued a corrigendum stating as follows: “In para 6 at page no. 2 of the said order, it has been noticed that there is a typographical error as \"sold\". Here it is mentioned that the property has been purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the word \"sold\" mentioned of the said order may be read as \"purchased\" in the said order of the para. Rest of the contents of the order shall remain unchanged.\" Ld. Counsel submitted that the above actions of AO shows that the Ld. AO did not apply his mind while framing the assessment. Even the Ld. JCIT who had approved the draft assessment order did not point out this inconsistency which only shows that the Ld.JCIT approved an incorrect and inconsistent draft assessment order, the Ld.JCIT did not peruse the records, draft order and the replies and evidences filed by the assessee which stated that he purchased the said property and so the approval was granted in a perfunctory manner without application of mind. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: • PCIT (Central)-2 v. Anuj Bansal [2024] 466ITR 251 (Delhi High Court) [SLP filed by the department also dismissed in [2024] 165 taxmann.com 3 (SC)] [Relevant Para 13,15]- inconsistencies in the figure of returned income by AO and approved by Additional CIT Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 12 • Kehar Singh ITA. No. 2835 to 2841/ Del/2024 -para 8 to 11. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find considerable merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In this case during the AY 2020-21 the assessee had purchased residential building along with Shri Parveen Gupta for a consideration of Rs.9,90,00,000/- and the circle rate/stamp duty value of the property purchased was Rs.9,70,06,834/-. The AO made a reference to the DVO for the valuation of the property observing as under: “6. During the year under consideration, the assessed has sold a property in Delhi. As per information available with the Department, the market value of the land was very high as compared to the value shown In the sale deed. Sh. Praveen Gupta and Sh. Gautam Gupta has sold property BP-22 (comprising of basement Floor, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor), West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs.9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 24.06.2019. In this property, the assessee had total 50% share and this property was jointly sold by the assessee. The value of the property on which it was sold by the assessee was less than that of the market value for this reasons the above property was referred to the DVO on 17.03.2022 for valuation u/s 142A of the Income Tax Act to determine the fair market value as on date of sale.” 11. As could be seen from the above, the AO made a reference to the DVO for the valuation of the property on the premise that the assessee had sold a property in Delhi and as per information available Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 13 with the Department the market value of the land was very high as compared to the value shown in the sale deed. The AO stated that the assessees namely Shri Gautam Gupta and Shri Parveen Gupta had sold property BP-22 (comprising of basement floor, ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor) West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs.9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 24.06.2019. Therefore, the AO was of the view that since the value of the property which was sold by the assessees was less than the market value and for this reason the property was referred to DVO for determining the fair market value as on the date of sale. Therefore, the whole premise on which the AO referred the valuation to the DVO is that the assessees sold the property for less than market value. As a matter of fact the assessees during the year under consideration never sold any property and on the other hand, they have jointly purchased the property for consideration over and above the circle rate/stamp duty valuation. In the circumstances, we see that the basis and premise on which the AO referred the valuation is on a wrong premise that the assessees sold the property and therefore the reference itself has no factual basis and bad in law. 12. Even otherwise the difference in valuation as per the sale consideration and the DVO is merely Rs.16,99,100/- which comes to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 14 1.71% and therefore the variation is very negligible. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee with that of the DVO the variation is 3.86% and this is a very minor variation having regard to the large sums involved. Similarly in the case of PCIT vs. Vishnu Apartments (supra) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: 1. The Principal Commissioner assails the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 10 October 2019 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration:- “A. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that rejection of books of accounts is a mandatory pre-condition before referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer ('DVO') for the purpose of determination of the cost of Construction? B. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in following the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [328 ITR 513 (SC)] without appreciating the insertion of Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 introduced vide Finance Act, 2004? C. Whether the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in not sustaining the addition of Rs.90,50,894, relatable to the cost of construction of the project basis the DVO Report on the premise that the difference between the value declared by the Respondent/Assessee and the DVO is less than 3% and therefore constitutes an insignificant difference?” 2. Having heard Mr. Chawla, learned counsel in support of the appeal, we find that the issue which stands raised essentially stands concluded against the appellant bearing in mind the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P. Ltd. [2012 SCC OnLine Del 3928] wherein the following was observed: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 15 “16. In view of the above, it is evident that the valuation in this case was uncritically accepted by the AO. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, with that of the DVO, the variation is 3.86%. This is a very minor variation, having regard to the large amounts involved. Besides, the fact that the AO did not examine the variations, with specific reference to any items tare that were unreasonable, or showed wide variation, these differences can also be put down to differing perceptions, and the practice adopted by the concerned business activity. 17. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the variation in valuation, in this case between what was disclosed by the assessee and what was indicated by the DVO is not significant, this court is of opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.” 3. Undisputedly, the variation between the valuation as relied upon by the assessee and that which was found by the Departmental Valuation Officer is 2.54%. Bearing in mind the insignificant variation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ITAT. 4. Accordingly, and in the light of the principles laid down in Ambience Developers, then appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.” 13. Applying the principle laid down by the above judgments to the facts of the assessees case, we find that the variation in the case on hand before us is only 1.71% which is a very minor variation and therefore on this account also the addition cannot be sustained. 14. We further find that in spite of the assessee writing so many letters to the AO right from 20.12.2021, 02.02.2022, 23.01.2022 and 25.02.2022 intimating the AO that the assessee purchased a property on 12.09.2019 and no immovable property was sold during the assessment year under consideration and also by vide reply dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 16 28.02.2022 specifically providing copy of agreement to sell, sale deed, affidavit of director of seller, bank statement of the assessee showing source of purchase and payment made for purchase of the immovable property and also home loan sanction letter, the AO went on to complete the assessment on 09.05.2022 assuming that the assessee sold the property but not purchased the said property during the assessment year under consideration. The draft order sent by the AO for approval u/s 153D for JCIT was promptly approving without even applying the mind to the materials available on record replies furnished by the assessee the documentary evidences proving that the assessee had only purchased the property during the assessment year under consideration but never sold any property. Neither the AO applied his mind while framing the assessment nor the JCIT while granting approval u/s 153D of the Act. The JCIT granted approval in an incorrect and inconsistent draft assessment order without perusing the records and therefore the approval granted u/s 153D is without application of mind and is bad in law and consequently the assessment framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act based on an invalid approval granted u/s 153D is null and void. Therefore, on this account also the addition cannot be sustained. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025 PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA 17 Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 69 of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 15. Facts in the case of Shri Parveen Gupta are identical to the facts in the case of Shri Gautam Gupta who is the co-owner of the property the decision taken in the appeal of Shri Gautam Gupta squarely applies mutantis mutandis to the appeal of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 16. In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21.11.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "