RAMAN GOYAL,CHANDIGARH V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

ITA 34/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Shri Raman Goyal, against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary issue in dispute was the addition of Rs. 42,000 to the assessee's income for each year, which was based on the annual rental value of a residence in Delhi being assessed at Rs. 3,00,000 instead of Rs. 1,80,000 as declared by the assessee. The Tribunal examined whether the additions were justified, considering the legal requirements for such additions post-search operations under sections 132(1) and 153A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the additions were not based on any incriminating material and thus allowed the appeals, deleting the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717362 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 454 ITR 212
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUSUM BA NSAL; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH MONGA
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 33 & 34/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / A.Y. : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Raman Goyal, House No. 309, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Vs The DCIT, Sector 17, Chandigarh, èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AANPG9677J अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, ld. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of ld. CIT (Appeals) dated 08.11.2024 passed for assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. Though the assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in each year, but his grievance revolves around a single issue, Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.33 & 34/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 2 namely, whether addition of Rs.42,000/- deserves to be made in each assessment year or not ? The above addition has been made on the ground that annual rental value of a residence in Delhi ought to be taken at Rs.3,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,80,000/- shown by the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed her return of income on 04.08.2016 and 26.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.28,83,930/- and Rs.18,45,840/- respectively. In assessment year 2016-17, no notice u/s 143(2) was issued for scrutinizing the return of the assessee. However, in assessment year 2017-18, a scrutiny assessment was passed on 04.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. It appears that a search u/s 132(1) was carried out on 13.12.2020 at the business and residential premises related to M/s Nectar Lifesciences Limited, M/s Avensis Exports Pvt. Ltd. which are associate concerns. The assessee was also one of the connected persons, hence, she was also covered under search operation. Notices have been issued u/s 153A on 13.08.2021. The assessee has filed return of income declaring Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.33 & 34/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 3 total income at Rs.21,84,160/- and Rs.22,64,230/- in assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The time limit to issue notice in assessment year 2016-17 u/s 143(2) was expired much prior to date of search. Similarly, in assessment year 2017-18, the assessment order attained finality before the search was carried out. The assessments in both the years could only abate if some incriminating material was found. No such incriminating material has been referred by the AO in both the assessments. The AO has referred certain agreements under which this house property could be let out from 01.04.2016. These agreements were not under the signature of the assessee. The Department has not made out a case that these properties have actually been let out on the basis of these agreements and this information was withheld by the assessee from the department. Therefore, it can be considered as an incriminating material. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making the additions which are in contravention to the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.33 & 34/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 4 Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 454 ITR 212. Following the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgement, we allow both the appeals and delete the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced on 11.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "