SANDEEP SINGLA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7302/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 June 2026AY 2018-193 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 AO wrongly made additions for the house property used by the assessee's family for residential purposes. Such properties should be considered self-occupied, and additions for notional rent as vacant property were deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee owned six properties, claiming some as self-occupied. The AO treated one property as self-occupied and made additions for others as deemed rental income. The assessee argued that one property was owned by his brother, another was too small for his family, and he was living in a separate house.

What were the issues?

Whether properties occupied by family members for residence can be treated as vacant and subjected to notional rent additions. Whether only one property can be considered self-occupied by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.03.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7302/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Sandeep Singla, Income Tax Officer, 23, Housing Board Colony, Gurugram. Jharsa Road, Gurugram, Vs. Haryana-122001. PAN-AFNPK0140F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C.S. Gupta, Adv. Assessee by Department by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short] in Appeal No. NFAC-2017-18/10037753 arising out of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 23.03. 2021 for Assessment Year: 2018-19.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 31.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs.1,07,47,730/-. The assessee engaged in the business of “Wholesale and Retail Sales of textiles, apparel, footwear, leather good” etc. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Income from House Property”. The AO observed that the assessee owned six properties which are claimed as self-occupied out of which assessee has shown House No.576, Sector 15, Gurugram and H. No.24, Housing Board, Gurugram as self- occupied during the year under consideration. The assessee is living in House No.23, Housing Board Colony, Gurugram. The AO treated one property as self-occupied and made the additions for the remaining properties as deemed rental income based on the Anual Lettable Value (ALV).

2 ITA No.7302 /Del/2025 Sandeep Singhla v. ITO 3. In first appeal, assessee claimed that the house No.23, Housing Board Colony is owned by his brother and House No.24, Housing Board Colony is having total area of only 120 Sq. yds and very old construction and is used by elder son for his residence as it cannot accommodate the entire family thus the assessee is living in separate house. He thus prayed that if the said house is also treated as self-occupied, no addition could be made with respect to notional rent for the other house property. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing that only one house could be taken as self-occupied.

4.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein all the grounds of appeal are with respect to the addition of Rs.7,20,000/- made on account of notional rent of the house property situated at 576, Sector 15, Gurugram.

5.

Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. The claim of the assessee was that House No.576, Sector-15, Gurugram, which was used by the assessee for his own residence as the house property at Housing Board Colony was small and not sufficient for the whole family and thus the same was occupied by his son. The Revenue alleged that only one house could be held as self -occupied, however, the fact remains that this property is also occupied for residence by the assessee himself and his son is residing which fact has not been doubted by the lower authorities. Once the property is in use by the assessee for residential purposes, the same could be held as a vacant property, of which the ALV could be taken as notional rent. Considering these facts, we are of the considered view that the AO has wrongly made the additions for the house property which is under self-use by the family members of the assessee for residential purposes and, therefore, the same is held as self-occupied property. Accordingly, the addition made towards notional rent by treating the same as vacant property is hereby deleted. All the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.06.2026 *PK, Sr. PS*

3 ITA No.7302 /Del/2025 Sandeep Singhla v. ITO Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →