PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no interference was warranted under its limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the mere fact that the assessee was likely to inherit the property after her mother's demise did not make the addition taxable in her hands for the years under consideration. The finding that Ms. Ritu Verma was the beneficial owner, as concluded in the proceedings under the Black Money Act, was determinative. The Court found no substance in the revenue's apprehension that Ms. Ritu Verma might change her version later. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were rejected. The operative direction was the rejection of the appeals.
What were the facts?
The appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi, challenge orders dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). These ITAT orders set aside assessment orders dated 27.12.2018 passed against the respondent-assessee, Shriti Verma, for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially initiated proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, and made a protective assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, another AO, in proceedings under the 2015 Act, concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the foreign assets in question, finding that her mother, Ms. Ritu Verma, was the beneficial owner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was legally justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2018, given that the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the foreign assets. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the fact that the ITAT, CIT(A), and the High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee implies acceptance of the findings from the Black Money Act proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the Appellate Authority was not legally justified in setting aside the assessment order. It contended that the appeal filed by the assessee's mother, Ms. Ritu Verma, was still pending, and until that attained finality, no clean chit could be given to the respondent-assessee. The revenue also pointed out that the assessee had submitted that the property would vest in her after the demise of Ms. Ritu Verma.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026 CM APPL. 31909/2026 (exemption) in ITA 395/2026 CM APPL. 32451/2026 (exemption) in ITA 402/2026 CM APPL. 32742/2026 (exemption) in ITA 404/2026
Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 33733/2026 (exemption) in ITA 412/2026
The applications stand disposed of. CM APPL. 31910/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 395/2026 CM APPL. 32452/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 402/2026 CM APPL. 32743/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 404/2026 CM APPL. 33734/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 412/2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:07
For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 3 days in filing the appeals is condoned.
The applications stand disposed of. CM APPL. 31911/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 395/2026 CM APPL. 32453/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 402/2026 CM APPL. 32744/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 404/2026
For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 16 days in re- filing the appeals is condoned. CM APPL. 33735/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 412/2026
The applications stand disposed of. ITA 395/2026 ITA 402/2026 ITA 404/2026
By way of the instant appeals, the appellant has challenged the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: ‘G’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 4483/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14, ITA No. 4484/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13, ITA No. 4485/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 and ITA No. 4486/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15. ITA 412/2026
The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the proceedings to frame assessment in hands of the respondent on protective basis, by observing that he had initiated the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to “the Act of 2015”).
At the time of passing the assessment order, the AO made it clear that since the income cannot be taxed under both the Acts, namely, the Act of 2015 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:07
1961’), the assessment made under the Act of 1961 shall remain protective.
It is an admitted fact that subsequently by way of an order dated 06.12.2021, another AO under the Act of 2015 concluded the proceedings against the respondent-assessee by observing thus: “7.4 In view of the totality of circumstances, it is clear that for STEL, Ms. Shriti Verma is clearly not the beneficial owner. In-fact, as per the express instruction of Ms. Ritu Verma, the assessee, Ms. Shriti Verma would have become the beneficiary only in the event of the death of Ms. Ritu Verma. 7.4.1 Even for the case of Master Experts Investments Ltd, the control and ownership of the assets clearly lies with Ms. Ritu Verma. Assets have been received in the entity Master Experts Investments Ltd from STEL, an entity clearly beneficially owned by Ms. Ritu Verma. The inclusion of the name of Ms. Shriti Verma in the list of beneficial owners of Master Experts Investments Ltd, in addition to Ms. Ritu Verma clearly stems from the intention of Ms. Ritu Verma to bestow the assets held in Master Experts Investments Ltd to Ms. Shriti Verma, an intention clearly expressed through her letter dated 09.06.2009 issues in respect of STEL. This however does not make such assets taxable in the hands of Ms. Shriti Verma. It is clear that such undisclosed foreign assets in the form of assets held in STEL, and Master Experts Investments Ltd have Ms. Ritu Verma as the beneficial owner. 7.4.2 In view of the above, I find that the various foreign assets forming the basis of issue of the notice u/s 10(1) dated 30.12.2020 in the case of the assessee are actually not held by the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma as the beneficial owner but are held by Ms. Ritu Verma as the beneficial owner. Accordingly, no addition is being made herein so far as the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma is concerned.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:07
In view of the above observations made by the AO in the order passed under the Act of 2015 that the respondent-assessee was not a beneficial owner, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi so also the Tribunal set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2018. 12. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the Appellate Authority was not legally justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2018. 13. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the mother of the assessee, namely Ms. Ritu Verma is still pending and until such proceedings attain finality, no clean chit could be given to the respondent-assessee, who is the daughter of said Ms Ritu Verma.
He argued that according to the submissions made by the respondent- assessee during the proceedings under the Act 2015, the property would vest in the respondent after demise of Ms. Ritu Verma.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that no interference is warranted under this Court’s limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act of 1961. 16. The assessee’s mother Ms. Ritu Verma took the plea before the Authority under the Act of 2015 that firstly, she is not the beneficial owner of the subject property while also taking an alternative plea that if the property is held to be owned by her as the beneficial owner, then the property would ultimately devolve in Shriti Verma-assessee after her demise.
The mere fact that she stated that the property would vest in the respondent-assessee after her demise, cannot change the legal position. In This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:07
other words, simply because the respondent-assessee is likely to inherit such property, the addition cannot be made, that too in the year under consideration.
We do not find any substance in the apprehension expressed by Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant that tomorrow Ms. Ritu Verma can change her version and take the plea that the property belong to her daughter namely, the respondent-assessee.
The appeals are, therefore, rejected.
DINESH MEHTA, J
VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 19, 2026/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:07
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
