SONICA SACHDEVA TH THE LEGAL HEIR DEEPAK SACHDEVA,GHAZIABAD V. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 5051/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sonica Sachdeva against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the additions made by the AO regarding unexplained loans and money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the sources of the loans and the valuation of shares sold, which were initially treated as unexplained money by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly verified the sources of the loans and had recalculated the value of shares without a proper basis, leading to the decision to remit these issues back to the AO for further examination. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of brokerage charges, finding that the assessee was entitled to claim 1% of the transaction value as brokerage, contrary to the 0.5% limit imposed by the AO and CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835810 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A.K. KHURANA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5051/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Sonica Sachdeva Through The Legal vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Heir Deepak Sachdeva, Ghaziabad 6042, ATS Advantage, Ahinsa Khand, Indrapura, Ghaziabad, UP (PAN: BFZPK7879E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A.K. Khurana, CA Respondent by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2021- 22/10345198 dated 26.6.2025. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle2(1)(1), Ghaziabad for the assessment year 2022-23 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the Act) vide order dated 31.3.2024. 2. The first issue in this appeal by the assessee is as regards to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO for making addition on account of unsecured loan as unexplained money amounting to Rs. 6,20,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that assessee before the AO explained that the amount of Rs. 6,20,000/- being amount of loan given on 16.8.2021 of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,20,000/- on 30.8.2021 was out of the assessee’s bank maintained with Kotak Bank which is enclosed at Assessee’s Paper Book at pages 20-21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards the entry dated 16.8.2021 wherein, an amount of Rs. 4 lacs was received on account of maturity of FDR and another amount of Rs. 2.20 lacs on 31.8.2021 was also proceeds of maturity of FDR. Ld. Counsel explained that the AO as well as CIT(A) misunderstood the explanation and their entire premise for making addition was that the amount has not been out of the outstanding amount against Rs. 63,89,698/-. Ld counsel for the assessee stated that this amount is explained. When this fact was confronted to the Ld. Sr. DR she argued that this aspect of FDR was never examined by the AO, hence, the matter can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification of the proceeds received on maturity of FDR on 16.8.2021 amounting to Rs. 4 lacs and on 31.8.2021 amounting to Rs. 2.20 lacs. After hearing both the sides, we find that assessee has explained the source of these two amounts as proceeds FDR, but these were never verified by the AO, hence, for verification purposes only, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the Assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. The next issue raised in this appeal of the assessee is as regards the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 14,10,142/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act by recalculating the FMV of the purchase cost of shares which were sold during the year. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the AO as well as CIT(A) added the difference valuation made by the AO and assessee under Rule 11UA being the value of purchase of shares as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69A of the Act. We Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e noted that in the order of the AO as well as CIT(A), both the authorities relied on the valuation made under Rule 11UA. The assessee has substracted the other current liability of Rs. 7,89,133.50 and short term provisions of Rs. 18,50,300/-, but without reasoning. We are of the view that these liabilities are allowable substructions as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, as these liabilities and provisions are not of contingent nature nor there is any provision for disallowance of the same. The assessee has claimed Index cost of purchase of shares of Rs. 7,50,612/-, but the AO has recalculated the indexed cost of Rs. 14,10,142/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act by changing the valuation of shares without any basis. We find that AO has exceeded this jurisdiction in recalculating the value without any basis. In terms of above, we direct the AO to allow the claim of assessee, hence, the addition made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act is deleted. Accordingly, the ground no. 3 is allowed. 6. The next issue in this appeal is as regards the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing expenses of brokerage charges of Rs. 3,85,002/-. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has claimed brokerage expenses of Rs. 7.25 lacs, but the CIT(A) and AO allowed only Rs. 3.39 lakh which is 50% of the brokerage expenses. The CIT(A) and AO both noted that as per RERA, the brokerage allowable is 0.5% in property deals. Now before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the total transaction for purchase of property is Printed from counselvise.com 4 | P a g e Rs. 7,24,99,998/- and assessee has claimed brokerage expenses @1%. In our view, there is no basis in restricting the brokerage of 0.5% and according to us, the assessee has rightly and reasonably claimed @1% of the brokerage for purchase of property. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the authorities below and allow the ground no. 4 raised by the Assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Date: 13-02-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "