NEERAJ YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7826/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 December 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities wrongly assessed the individual assessee for rental income when the income pertained to the assessee's HUF, which had already been assessed for the same income.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose from an order confirming the addition of income from house property, specifically rental income from land. The lower authorities assessed the individual assessee for this income.

What were the issues?

Whether the rental income from land was rightly assessed in the hands of the individual assessee when it belonged to the HUF and was already assessed therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 23(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv. &, Shri Ankit Khanduri, adv
For Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal 2020-21 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 29.09.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081300360(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee as having not disclosed income from house property regarding his land at “Mandi” Chakkarpur, Gurgaon involving an amount appellate discussion.

3.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s eponymous “HUFs” income tax return acknowledgement filed for the relevant assessment year appearing at page 137 of the paper book along with its computation appearing at pages 162-163 of the paper book, indicating it to have been duly assessed for the very rental income u/s 23(1) of the Act. It is thus crystal clear that both the learned lower authorities have wrongly assessed the assessee- individual for the alleged rental receipts than his HUF which is not found sustainable in very terms. Deleted accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on 24.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →