SANJAY AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण
धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली
श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.860/धिल्ली/2024 (नि.व. 2017-18)
Sanjay Ahuja,
196, Top Floor, MIG Green Flats,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi 110027
PAN: ADRPA-8279-R

...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax,
NFAC, Delhi

..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate (Through VC)
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Keshav Kishore Aanad, Sr. DR

सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing

:
18/12/2025

घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
:
18/12/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated
09.01.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Shivam Garg, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that in scrutiny assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer (AO) inter alia made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- u/s.68A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee in his return of income had declared ‘Income from House
Property’ Rs.6,00,000/-. The AO made said addition holdings that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to show ownership of the property bearing no. E-
16, DSIDC Complex, Nangloi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, from where the assessee has 2
purportedly declared rental income. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the findings on this issue in assessment order. The ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished copy of registered agreement to sell dated 30.09.2008 to substantiate that the property bearing no. E-16, admeasuring 2700
sq. ft. situated at DSIDC Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi was purchased by the assesee jointly with three other persons namely; Nikhil Kumar Nagpal, Narender Kumar Nagpal & Alka
Ahuja a total for consideration of Rs.69,00,000/-. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the said property was subsequently leased out to two different parties i.e. (i) New AM
Products vide lease agreement dated 11.04.2016 on a monthly lease rental of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of three years; & (ii) Shri Swastik Polymers vide lease agreement dated 11.04.20.16 on a monthly lease rental of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of three years. The assessee being owner of ¼ share in the said property offered his share of rental income i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- in his return of income as income from House
Property. The AO made addition of the rental income declared by the assessee as unexplained income u/s.68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assesese in light of the ownership documents placed on record, prayed for deleting the addition.
3. Per contra, Shri Keshav Kishore Aanad, representing the department supported the impugned order and submitted that since the assessee had failed to furnish ownership document of the property before the authorities below. The rental income declared by the assessee was disbelieved.
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue in the present appeal by the assessee is with regard to genuineness of rental income earned by the assessee during the relevant period. The assessee in his return of income inter alia had offered to tax Rs.6,00,000/- under the head Income from House Property. In absence

3
of any documentary evidence produced by the assessee before the AO with regard to title of ownership of the property from which rental income has been declared, the AO disbelieved the assessee’s submission, though, the assessee had placed on record Lease
Agreements. Similar was the position before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee has now placed on record a copy of registered sale agreement dated 30.09.2008 vide which the assesssee in joint ownership with three other persons had purchased property bearing no E-16, DSIDC Complex, Nangloi, New Rohtak Road, Delhi to substantiate assessee’s title in the immovable property. After examining the same, I am satisfied that the assessee has discharged his onus in proving his ownership in the property from which the assessee has earned rental income and has offered the same to tax in his return of income under the head Income from House Property. In light of the document furnished by the assessee, the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act is directed to be deleted.
5. Thus, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Thur ay the 18th day of December, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 18/12/2025

NV/-

4
प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.