Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sanjay Shukla, purchased a flat jointly with his wife, Smt. Bhumika Shukla, with his wife contributing Rs. 44,75,000/- as a gift from her father. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 and treated this Rs. 44,75,000/- as unexplained investment in the assessee's hands, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Crucially, the same amount was also added as unexplained investment in a separate assessment proceeding against his wife for the same transaction.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the property was jointly owned and the impugned amount of Rs. 44,75,000/- had already been added as unexplained investment in the assessment of the assessee's wife, there was no legal justification for making the identical addition again in the hands of the assessee (husband). Therefore, the addition made in the assessee's hands was liable to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for unexplained investment could be sustained in the assessee's hands when the same amount had already been added in the assessment of his co-owner wife, and whether the addition was correctly made for A.Y. 2016-17 for payments made in earlier financial years.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 250, 69A, 115BBE, 148, 69, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
The above captioned appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.07.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (for short, CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1078340434(1) for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessment was framed by 1 | P a g e
ITA 5201/DEL/2025 SANJAY SHUKLA,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR VS. ASSESSING OFFICER NFAC, DELHI Assessing Officer (for short, AO) u/s 147 r.w.s 144/144B of the Act vide his order dated 14.03.2022.
The grounds of appeal
are reproduced as under: “(a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 44.75 lakhs paid by Mrs. Bhumika Singh Shukla -spouse in FY 2008-09-Rs8.48, FY 2009-10 Rs 12.85 & 23.42) lakhs as unexplained investment u/s 69A. (b) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of payments of Rs 44.75 (FY 2008-09 - Rs8.48, FY 2009-1
0. Rs 12.85 & FY 2010-11 Rs 23.42) lakhs in income of this year when not made the financial year this assessment but in preceding Years against the principles of law. (c) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition ignoring the fact that the said Rs 44.75 lakhs has also been added in the assessment of Mrs. Bhumika Singh Shukla -spouse by order dated 9.4.2023 -ITBA/ ASTS/47/2023-24/1052187591(1). (d) The Tax demand raised is wrong. (e) Interests charged u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D are wrong. (f) The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. (g) That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter or abandon any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. ”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2016-17 on 12.08.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 1,08,95,670/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, on the basis of information regarding purchase of flat by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 1,03,39,125/- during the year under consideration. In response to the notice u/s 148 of 2 | P a g e
ITA 5201/DEL/2025 SANJAY SHUKLA,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR VS. ASSESSING OFFICER NFAC, DELHI the Act, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 1,22,10,660/-. It was explained by the assessee that the property in question was a flat in J.P. Greens, Wish Town, Noida, which was purchased jointly along with his wife Smt. Bhumika Shukla who had contributed a sum of Rs. 44,75,000/-. While the assessee explained the sources of the balance amount which was contributed by him out of his salary income, the PAN No. of Smt. Bhumika Shukla was provided with the explanation that no return was filed by her as income was below the threshold limit and the contribution of Rs. 44,75000/- was a gift received by her from her father. Rejecting the assessee’s explanation, the Ld. AO treated the sum of Rs. 44,75,000/- as un-explained income of the assessee which was added u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, vide order dated 14.03.2022 at an assessed income of Rs. 1,66,85,660/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025.
Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned property has been purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife who has contributed a sum of Rs. 44,75,000/- towards purchase consideration. This amount has been considered in her hands by the department and a separate assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B has been made vide order dated 19.04.2023, treating this amount as un-explained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The appeal against this order is still pending. In view of these facts, there is no justification for making the same addition in the hands of assessee. Ld. AR has explained that the impugned amount was paid by the father of 3 | P a g e
ITA 5201/DEL/2025 SANJAY SHUKLA,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR VS. ASSESSING OFFICER NFAC, DELHI Smt. Bhumika Shukla from his explained sources directly to the builder namely, Jaypee Infratech Ltd. These payments were made during FYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 and no amount has been invested during the year under consideration. Further, the property is registered in the joint names of the assessee and his wife and she has explained the source in her assessment proceedings. Impugned amount was received as gifts from her father in the earlier assessment FYs and, therefore, no addition could be made in the A.Y. 2016-17 and, in no case, these could be considered in the hands of the assessee.
4.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He has argued that since the sale deed was registered in the year under consideration, the transaction came to the knowledge of the department only during this assessment year and, hence, the addition has rightly been made in A.Y. 2016-17. He has further argued that no return was filed by his wife Smt. Bhumika Shukla, during the year under consideration as her income was below the taxable limit. Accordingly, the sources in her hands could not be satisfactorily explained. In view of these facts, the addition has rightly been made in the hands of the assessee, and, therefore, the same deserves to be upheld.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material placed before us. At the outset, it is noticed that the addition for the impugned amount has been made in the hands of Smt. Bhumika Shukla, vide order dated 14.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act passed by her assessing officer. Since the property is jointly owned by the assessee and his wife and Smt. Bhumika Shukla has explained the sources being on account of gift from father, the addition, if any, could have been made only in her hands. Since the addition has already been made in the hands of Smt.
ITA 5201/DEL/2025 SANJAY SHUKLA,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR VS. ASSESSING OFFICER NFAC, DELHI Bhumika Shukla, there is no justification whatsoever, for making the same addition in the hands of the husband. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the addition in the hands of assessee is liable to be deleted as the impugned addition has been made in the hands of his wife.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22-12-2025.