DEVRANJAN MITTRA,SOUTH DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, SOUTH DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5852/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2026AY 2023-20246 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities were incorrect in disallowing the HUF status solely based on the Dayabhaga law. Citing High Court precedents that recognized HUFs in such communities, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared rental income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) noted a discrepancy with Form 26AS. The AO disallowed the HUF status for rental income, citing the Bengali community's lack of HUF concept under Dayabhaga law, and added the entire rental income to the assessee's individual income. The CIT(A) sustained the addition due to the assessee's failure to provide documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, belonging to a Bengali community, is entitled to claim income under the status of HUF, and whether the tax authorities erred in disregarding past accepted HUF assessments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 270A,Section 274,Section 171(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 5852/Del/2025 Devranjan Mittra (AY: 2023-24) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.5852/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24)

DevranjanMittra Vs. Assessment Unit B-77, Greater Kailash-1 South Delhi New Delhi – 110048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AFRPM4084Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA Respondent by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.07.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078787545(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 12.03.2025 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 5852/Del/2025 Devranjan Mittra (AY: 2023-24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2023-24.

2.

Heard and perused the record. The assesse Devranjan Mittra now deceased contesting through his wife Ms. Sagorika Mittra filed return of income which was picked up for scrutiny by CASS. It was noticed as per Form 26AS that the rental income declared by the assesse was less that what was being depicted in Form 26AS. Assessee had explained that assesse held properties in individual capacity as well as status of HUF and the gross rent of Rs.1,89,54,186/- were received in the year of which amount of Rs.1,45,92,690/- was declared as income in the status of HUF and the balance amount of rent has been offered to tax in the individual hands of the assesse. Assessing Officer has concluded that as assesse belongs to Bengali community where there is no concept of HUF being governed by Dayabhaga School of Law. Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of income reported in HUF and the whole rental income deserves to be considered to be of assesse, as for completeness we reproduce the conclusions drawn by assessing officer.

“4.6 Conclusion drawn With the discussion held in preceding paras, it is concluded that the proposed variation is held to be indisputable. Variation on account of additional rent receipts under the head House Property: Accordingly, the net income from the House property

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 5852/Del/2025 Devranjan Mittra (AY: 2023-24) as derived in para 2.4 of the SCN comes at Rs.49,65,213/- out of which the assessee has shown income under the head house property to the extent of Rs.22,25,066/- only. Therefore, the balance amounting to Rs.49,65,213/- minus Rs.22,25,066/- i.e. Rs.27,40,147/- is treated as additional income under the head House Property and the same is added to the total income of the assessee during the year in question relevant to A.Y.-2023-24. Penalty proceeding u/s. 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act is initiated separately on account of under-reporting of income which is in consequence mis- reported thereof.”

3.

Ld. CIT(A) has also sustained the same but primarily for the reason that assesse has failed to produce any details/documents or submissions at the appellate stage.

4.

The ld. AR has reasserted the fact as cited before ld. Tax authorities below.

5.

Ld. DR has submitted that assesse has been non-compliant

6.

After considering the facts and circumstances we find that while raising grounds before ld. First Appellate Authority assesse had given a complete reasoning based on facts and documents including the assertion that how the HUF entities came into existence and continued to be recognized of the ld. Tax authorities below. As for completeness we reproduce para 2.1 of the impugned order.

“2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellant filed appeal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5852/Del/2025 Devranjan Mittra (AY: 2023-24)

(1) THAT the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer, in the Appellant’s case, being ab initio void and ultra vires, without jurisdiction, as envisaged by law, was against all cannons of law, justice and equity and the skipping over the submissions made by the appellant in this behalf is without any legal sanction or justification.

(2) THAT the above assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer has been passed without appreciating the legal and factual position of the case in its true and proper perspective.

(3) THAT having regard to the acceptance of the status of the Hindu Undivided Family of D.r A P Mittra and Brothers since 1936-37, on the death of Late Dr. I T Mittra in 1935, his three sons voluntarily blended and had thrown the properties acquired on the death of their father in common stock both in term of possession and ownership and there was nothing under DayaBhaga School of Law by which they could be prevented from forming joint family, in as much as the finding of the learned Assessing Officer, is based on a misconception of law and mis appreciation of the legal position as well as against the findings already determined in favour of the appellant.

(4) THAT the learned Assessing Officer failed to visualize that after the partition of the erstwhile Hindu Undivided Family of Dr. A P Mittra and Brothers, there came in to existence two separate Hindu Undivided Families, namely Dr. A P Mittra and Sons and Shri K P Mittra (HUF). The properties that Shri K P Mittra received on partition became the properties of the smaller Hindu Undivided Family of Shri K P Mittra (HUF). Shri K P Mittra was the Karta of the HUF constituted by himself and his family members. Separate income tax and wealth tax assessments of the aforesaid Hindu Undivided Families, were made thereafter.

(5) THAT the learned Assessing Officer has miserably failed to weigh the evidence in its proper perspective and has otherwise misconstrued evidence in as much as in a final decree of partition passed in Suit No. 259 of 1970, by Hon’ble Justice B CMishra in the High Court of Delhi, by virtue of which Shri DevranjanMittra, Shri K P Mittra and Shrimati Kamala Mittra, were declared to be one third share each of the Hindu Undivided family of Shri K P Mittra (HUF).

(6) THAT an order was passed under section 171(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30th March, 1974, by the Income Tax Officer, District III (28), New Delhi, in the case of Shri K P Mittra (HUF), in which the claim for partition was duly accepted. As per an assessment order dated 30th March, 1974, passed under section 143 (3) of the Act, for the assessment year 1971- 72, wherein the claim for partition was also accepted, have been disregarded without any rhyme or reason.

(7) THAT in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the remarks given, reasons advanced and inferences drawn by the learned Assessing Officer, there was no warrant at all in including income of Rs. 27,40,147/-, belonging to Shri DevranjanMittra (HUF), when there was no or new material for holding otherwise.

(8) THAT the assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer, in the Appellants case is against the legal provisions as well as contrary to the factual aspects of the case, which has been wholly misunderstood by him, while resorting to a huge addition of Rs. 27,40,147/-, from additional income from house property, when the said income wholly and exclusively belonged to Shri DevRanjanMittra (HUF), a regular income tax assessee, in respect of Flat No. 405 and 412 and Flat No. 204, 205 and Loft No. 1, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 5852/Del/2025 Devranjan Mittra (AY: 2023-24) Marg, New Delhi, which were let out, in-asmuch as his findings are based on mere surmises, conjectures and irrelevant consideration. (9) THAT the learned Assessing Officer, failed to appreciate that the alleged additional income from property of Rs. 27,40,147/-, belonged to Shri DevRanjanMittra (HUF), who is a separate and distinct legal entity, which filed its return of income and has been duly assessed, in as much as the said addition to the total income is arbitrary, wholly uncalled for and tantamount to double taxation of the same income and as such is liable to be deleted. (10) The learned Assessing Officer, has grossly erred in considering the claim of House Tax at Rs. 11,82,830/-, as against aggregate payments of Rs. 46,33,650/-, made towards House Tax. (11) THAT the learned Assessing Officer, grossly erred in restricting the claim of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 198,44,892/-, to only Rs. 48,258/-, without any rhyme or reason. (12) THAT relief as per grounds of appeal may be allowed and the appellant be permitted to add, amend, delete or substitute any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

7.

After given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and

submissions we find that only controversy to determine is if the ld. Tax

authorities were correct to hold that the assesse being a Bengali does not

have right to be in joint hindu family as allegedly under Dayabhag law

there is no concept of HUF. We find that in order to assert this proposition

ld. Tax authorities have not relied any judicial precedent. However, we

find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. PN Talukdar (1982) 135

ITR 628 (Cal) and in CIT Vs. Dr. A.K. Basu (1991) (91) CTR (Cal 155)

recognized the existence of hindu undivided family as an accessible unit

by relying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CWT Vs. Smt.

Champa Kumari Singhi & Others (1972) AIR 2119. Thus, we are inclined

to set aside the findings of ld. Tax authorities below. The grounds raised

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 5852/Del/2025 Devranjan Mittra (AY: 2023-24) are sustained. The appeal is allowed. The ld. Assessing Officer is directed to delete the additions with a liberty to make additions in the hands of HUF as per law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 10.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →