SANJAY AGGRAWAL,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTERAL- CIRCLE 31 , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5287/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while commission was earned, the AO's estimation of 1% was high. Considering the assessee's claim of sharing with other brokers, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 0.50%.

What were the facts?

Following a search, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash and undisclosed commission income. The CIT(A) deleted the cash addition but upheld the commission income addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of undisclosed commission income at 1% by the AO was justified, and if not, what should be the correct estimation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &, Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv
Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30.06.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi-110055, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 25.03.2022 passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.- 5287/Del/2025 Sanjay Aggarwal referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-31, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20.

2.

Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: “The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 31, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating income from commission/ brokerage earned Rs 17,95,000 at the rate of 1 per cent of the value of the immovable properties for facilitating the sale of such immovable properties. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the impugned addition inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the action of the CIT(A) needs to be reversed. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the plea of the appellant that the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is on higher side, and hence, ought to be reduced considerably. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.”

3.

Brief facts ae that the original return was filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2019- 20 on 29.08.2019 declaring income of Rs. 14,60,180/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) on 23.10.2019. Subsequently, a search u/s 132 was conducted on 06.01.2021 at the Hans Group of cases at the residences and business premises of group entities including that of the assessee. Based on the incriminating material found and seized, a notice u/s 153A was issued on 09.11.2021 requiring the assessee

ITA No.- 5287/Del/2025 Sanjay Aggarwal to furnish his return. In response, return declaring same income was filed on 10.03.2022 by the assessee.

3.1 After examining the incriminating material seized during the course of search by the AO, found that the assessee had made several transactions in cash, as also earned commission from sale of properties facilitated by him through his Prop. Concern, M/s Agarwal Properties. The AO made the following additions after scrutiny.

(i) Addition on account of unexplained cash u/s 69A (on protective basis)- Rs. 1,76,00,000/-

(ii) Undisclosed commission income earned on sale of properties @ 1% - Rs. 17,95,000/-

3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 30.06.2025, the CIT(A) deleted the protective addition of Rs. 1,76,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee and upheld the addition of Rs. 17,95,000/- on account of undisclosed commission income.

3.3. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Sole substantive issue involved in this appeal pertains to estimation of commission income @ 1% on facilitating the sale of immovable properties by the assessee.

4.

Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the Ld. AO estimated the commission earned @ 1% of sale consideration disregarding the submissions of the assessee that the estimate was on higher side as other brokers are also involved in big transactions 3

ITA No.- 5287/Del/2025 Sanjay Aggarwal and effective commission earned, after sharing with other brokers was to the extent of 0.25% to 0.50% only. He has further submitted that the assessee was one of the facilitators of the sale / purchase deals of properties and not the sole broker and therefore, undisclosed commission estimated at 1% is on the higher side and should be reduced to 0.25-50%.

4.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR has argued that, 1% is the standard rate of brokerage in the market on sale / purchase of properties. Moreover, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding other brokers involved in the transactions to prove that the amount of commission was shared with them by the assessee to warrant any relief on this account.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee had certainly earned commission for brokering the deals as found from the incriminating material. The AO has estimated the commission at the prevalent market rate of 1%, after rejecting the assessee’s claim of having shared the commission with other brokers invoked as no details were submitted by the assessee. At the same time, the AO has also not made any independent enquiry from the concerned parties to ascertain the amount of commission paid to the assessee. After considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to reduce the estimated addition made @ 1% to 0.50% in order to meet

ITA No.- 5287/Del/2025 Sanjay Aggarwal the ends of justice. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce the addition from Rs. 17,95,000/- to 8,97,500/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 30.06.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →