What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was a co-owner and her sons, who were also co-owners of the same properties, were assessed at 'NIL' income, the same valuation should be followed for the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The assessee declared 'NIL' annual lettable value for multiple self-occupied or deemed to be let-out house properties. The Assessing Officer made additions to income under House Property, Capital Gains, and 'income from other sources'. The assessee appealed, but the CIT(A) dismissed it.

What were the issues?

Whether the valuation of jointly owned property should be consistent across co-owners when no different circumstances are demonstrated for one co-owner.

Nalini Sureshchandra Daftary… vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR

For Respondent: Shri Debasish Biswas, JCIT

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 24.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2066/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Nalini Sureshchandra Daftary Vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata First Floor, C301, Bharat Ark, Azadnagar Jeevan Sandhya Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai-400 053 [PAN: AFTPD7044M] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Debasish Biswas, JCIT Date of hearing : 19.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 16.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the case of the Assessee was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ on the issue that Assessee has declared in schedule HP of the ITR that she has having more than one house property which are self-occupied or deemed to be let out but offered ‘NIL’ Annual Lettable Value of more than one such properties. An

ITA No.2066/Kol/2026 Nalini Sureshchandra Daftary; A.Y: 2018-19 Assessment Order came to be passed on 23.12.2020 by making an addition of Rs.46,208/- on account of income under House Property, Rs.28,244/- on account of Capital gains and Rs.20,11,367/- on account of ‘income from other sources’. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 23.12.2020, Assessee preferred an Appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 16.04.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.04.2026, Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Assessee is the co-owner to the property and in the case of other co-owners i.e., Assessee’s sons Mr. Hitesh S. Daftary and Mr. Mitesh S. Daftary, the very same properties were assessed at ‘NIL’ by the National e-Assessment Centre for the year under consideration. However, erroneously the addition has been made in the hands of the Assessee in so far as her shares in the property is concerned. The Learned Counsel has taken us through the materials available on record and submitted that, it is well-settled law that, when the property was jointly owned, the valuation in the case of one co-sharer should be followed in the case of other co-sharer unless different circumstances are demonstrated. The Learned Counsel relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II Vs. Mrs. Ravinder Page | 2

ITA No.2066/Kol/2026 Nalini Sureshchandra Daftary; A.Y: 2018-19 Kaur reported in 2014 (8) TMI 1082-Punjab and Haryana High Court, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the Assessee is the co-owner of five property along with her sons namely, Mr. Hitesh S. Daftary, Mr. Mitesh S.Daftary, the details of the properties are as under:-

i. Flat 4B, 8A Rammoy Road, Kolkata (33.34% share) ii. Parshwa Apartment, Mukund Nagar, Pune (33.34% share) iii. The Springs CHS, Plot 4, Tower 3, Flat 501, Navi Mumbai (33.34% share) iv. The Springs CHS, Plot 4, Tower 9, Flat 501, Navi Mumbai (33.34 share) v. Flat C302, Bharat Ark, Andheri (West), Mumbai (50% share)

It is contention of the Ld. AR that in the case of co-owners, sons of the Assessee, Mr. Hitesh S. Daftary and Mr. Mitesh S. Daftary, the income from the very five properties were assessed at ‘NIL’ by National e-Assessment Centre for the year under consideration. The said fact is supported by the evidence produced in the paper book and the Ld. DR has not disputed the said factual aspects. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Mrs. Ravinder Kaur (supra), as decided the said issue in favour of the Assessee therein who is a co- owner in following manners:-

ITA No.2066/Kol/2026 Nalini Sureshchandra Daftary; A.Y: 2018-19 “6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeals For Subsequent orders seeITA-241-009. 7. It may be noticed that the assessee had 25% share in SCO No 52-53, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Her husband was also a co-sharer holding 25% share.The assessee had declared the value of the cost of construction at 14,13,860/- as against 23,73.012/- assessed by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) The difference, thus, came to 9,59,152/- which on bifurcation between assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 came to Rs. 7,29,436/- and 2,20,176/- respectively The 25% share of the assessee therein resulted in addition of 1,82,359/- for assessment year 1994-95 and 58,825/- for the assessment year 1995-96. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that the husband of the assessee, Shri Paramjit Singh also had 25% share in the said property and in his case, the Tribunal had adjudicated the issue in his favour and accepted the valuation shown by him and the order of the Tribunal was accepted by the revenue as no further appeal was filed against it in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to adopt two different valuations in respect of identical shares in the same property for the same period. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Jaswant Rai's case (supra) noticed that where the property was jointly owned, the valuation in the case of one co-sharer should be followed in the case of other co-sharer unless different circumstances are demonstrated. Further, the Apex Court in Berger Paints India Limited's case (supra) while adjudicating identical issue held as under “12 in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India vs Kaunudini Narayan Dalal, (2001) 249 ITR 219, CIT vs Narendra Doshi, (2002) 254 ITR 606 and CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate, (2002) 257 ITR 59, the principle established is that if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid For Subsequent orders see ITA-241-2009 down by the High Court and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause” 9. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are dismissed.”

By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ravinder Kaur (supra), we are of the opinion that the property was jointly owned by the Assessee

ITA No.2066/Kol/2026 Nalini Sureshchandra Daftary; A.Y: 2018-19 and her two sons, the valuation in the case of her two sons should be followed in the case of the Assessee, especially when the Assessing Officer has not demonstrated any different circumstances in the case of the Assessee. In view of the same, addition made by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby quashed.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 24.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

NALINI SURESHCHANDRA DAFTARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 29(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN DAKSHIN, KOLKATA

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