URWASHI RANJAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.3541/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13)
Urvashi Ranjan,
56 Type Four, North West Moti Bagh,
New Delhi 110021
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AMQPR-1685-J
बनाम Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1),
CGO –II, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-2010002
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Jain, Chartered Accountant
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
30/07/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
30/07/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 20.02.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The appeal is time barred by 394 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. The delay in filing of appeal is attributed to CA Dilip Kumar Singh. The said Chartered Accountant vide letter dated 17.05.2025 has admitted the fact that the delay in filing of appeal is due to his pre-occupancy in various other assignments. After perusal of reason, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal by the assessee is not intentional, the delay
2
has been caused for the reasons stated in petition not imputable to the assessee.
Thus, delay of 394 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
3. Shri Abhishek Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee narrating facts of the case submitted that the assessee is a school teacher. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee along with her Mother-in-
Law Mrs. Kiran Sinha purchased a property CS-37, Third Floor, Corporate Suites,
Ansal Plaza Mall, Vaishali, Sector -3, Ghaziabad 201010 for a total consideration of Rs.25,05,300/- including stamp duty. Both co-owners were having 50% share each in the said property. The assessee paid an amount of Rs.10,93,500/- i.e. 50% of the purchase consideration out of her personal savings Rs.2,44,000/- and hand loan from her Father-in-Law Shri Hirdya Ranjan Kumar Sinha Rs.8,49,000/-. To substantiate loan from her Father-in-Law, the assessee had furnished a copy of affidavit from her Father-in-Law (at page 58 and 59 of the paper book) before the Assessing Officer (AO). He pointed that a perusal of the affidavit would show the details of the amount advanced by Shri Hirdya Ranjan Kumar Sinha to the assessee on various dates through banking transactions. He also referred to the bank statement of the assessee at page 60 and 61 of the paper book. The ld. AR pointed that the affidavit contained PAN details of Father-in-Law of the assessee.
Hence, the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents to discharge her onus to prove genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO has erred in making addition of Rs.12,52,650/-on account of unexplained investments.
4. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to substantiate creditworthiness of her Father-in-
3
Law. The assessee neither furnish bank statement, nor the copies of Income Tax Returns of her Father-in-Law. She thus, prayed for upholding the addition.
5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below perused, the documents on which the ld. AR of assessee has placed reliance examined. The solitary issue on merits assailed by the assessee is with respect to addition of Rs.12,52,650/-. Undisputedly, during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had purchased a property situated at CS-37, Third Floor, Corporate Suites, Ansal Plaza Mall,
Vaishali, Sector -3, Ghaziabad 201010 in joint name with her Mother-in-Law Smt. Kiran
Sinha. The total consideration paid for aforesaid property was Rs.21,87,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.3,08,300/- was paid towards stamp duty and Rs.1,000/- paid towards other miscellaneous expenses. Thus, the total amount paid for purchase of property was Rs.25,05,300/-. Since the property was jointly owned by the assessee and her Mother- in-Law having 50% share each, the AO made addition of 50% of the aforesaid amount i.e. 12,52,650/- as the assessee allegedly failed to substantiate source of payment for acquiring the property. During First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished affidavit of Shri Hirdya Ranjan Kumar Sinha her Father-in-Law supporting the case of assessee that Rs.8,49,000/- was advanced by him between October 2011 and February
2012 on various dates for purchase of office space CS-37, Third Floor, Corporate Suites,
Ansal Plaza, Vaishali, Sector-3, Ghaziabad. A perusal of the said affidavit reveals that the amount was either directly credited to the bank account of the assessee or was paid directly to the builder on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of the affidavit also shows that PAN of Shri Hirdya Ranjan Kumar Sinha was also given in the affidavit. Taking into consideration the details given in the affidavit as well as the bank statement of the assessee, I find merit in the case of the assessee. The assessee had discharged her onus in proving source of funds for purchase of the property. Hence, addition of Rs.
12,52,650/- on account of unexplained investment is without any merit. Hence, the addition is deleted.
4
6. In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal is allowed.
7. The other peripheral issues raised by the assessee in ground of appeal no. 2
and 4 have become academic, thus, not deliberate upon.
8. The grounds of appeal no. 1, 5 and 6 are general, hence require no separate adjudication.
9. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wedne ay the 30th day of July,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 19/09/2025
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.