What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that subsequent developments, including the acceptance of the house property as constructed by both the assessee and her husband in the husband's case, necessitated fresh factual verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the matter to determine their respective shares.

The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of the cost of acquisition/construction amounting to Rs. 23,36,854/- for the assessment year 2012-13. The lower authorities disallowed this amount, which is the sole subject of the appeal.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the disallowance of the cost of acquisition/construction and the need for fresh verification of the assessee's and her husband's respective shares in the property.

Geeta Singh, New Delhi vs ACIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Prashant Goel, CA

Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3440/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Geeta Singh, Vs. ACIT, A 701, Hind Apartments, Circle-43(1), Plot No. 12, Delhi Sector-05, Dwarka, New Delhi PAN: BRHPS5342E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Rajesh Goel, Adv. Sh. Prashant Goel, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 2, Chennai’s order dated 04.02.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085555545(1), involving proceedings under section 2012-13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.3440/Del/2026

The assessee/appellant herein appears to have raised her sole substantive ground seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings disallowing cost of acquisition/construction; as the case may be, amounting to Rs.23,36,854/- which forms the sole subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication in her instant appeal. 3. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterated the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands against and in support of the impugned aforesaid disallowance. Learned counsel more particularly submits that the assessment and CIT(A)’s order followed by the Assessing Officer’s consequential computation in her husband Sh. Vedpal Singh’s case passed on 16.03.2026 accepting the very house property as duly constructed by both of them. The facts however remains that all these intervening developments require the learned Assessing Officer’s afresh factual verification so as to determine both the assessee and her husband’s respective share therein as well. It is thus deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication and verification within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3440/Del/2026

taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

GEETA SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments