Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue's appeal for AY 2021-22 pertains to the addition of Rs. 7,66,23,600/- as under-reported rental income. This addition was made by the Assessing Officer and subsequently reversed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted an earlier order for AY 2018-19 where the CIT(A)'s findings were upheld, disallowing a similar addition based on rental rates from an online portal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not dispute the factual position, especially since a prior order for a preceding assessment year had already upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. There was no distinction in facts or law between the two assessment years. Therefore, judicial consistency dictated upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the impugned addition.
Key Issues
Whether the deletion of the addition for under-reported rental income by the CIT(A) was justified, considering past precedent and factual similarities.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058430665(1) dated 04.12.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s sole substantive ground herein seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action adding the amount in question of Rs.7,66,23,600/- as the assessee’s under-reported rental
That being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the tribunal’s earlier order dated 02.12.2025 involving it’s appeal ITA 338/Del/2024 for preceding assessment year 2018-19 has already upheld the CIT(A)’s identical findings that the Assessing Officer could not have simply adopted the online portal property.sulekha.com’s rental rate. We further make it clear that there is no distinction on facts and law pinpointed at the Revenue’s behest in both these assessment years. We thus adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned under-reporting of rental income addition in very terms.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.