PARVEEN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025
PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2382/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2020-21
PARVEEN GUPTA
H 240, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1,
New Delhi.
PAN No.AAOPG3625N
बनाम
Vs.
ACIT,
Central Circle 30,
New Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
&
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2383/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2020-21
GAUTAM GUPTA
H.No.97, 1st Floor, G Block,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi.
PAN No.AJJPG3284A
बनाम
Vs.
DCIT,
Central Circle 30,
New Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocate &
Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Advocate
Revenue by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
17.09.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 21.11.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
These two appeals are filed by the assessees who are the co- owners of a property against the orders passed by the Ld.
CIT(Appeals)-30 dated 31.03.2025 for the AY 2020-21 in sustaining
ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025
PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA the addition made by the Assessing Officer being the difference between the value of property shown in the sale deed and fair market value determined by the DVO as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Since the issue in both these appeals is relating to valuation of property having 50% share as joint owners both the appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The assessees in these appeals raised the following common grounds of appeals:
1. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)”]
under section 250 of the income Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is patently illegal, erroneous and bad in law and on facts.
That on die facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,49,500/- made by the Lei. AO being difference between the value of property shown in the safe deed and fair market value determined by the District Valuation Officer Delhi (“DVO”) on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the difference between the safe consideration in sale deed and the Valuation as per DVO report is insignificant and does not warrant any addition as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi).
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition even though no incriminating material or evidence suggesting unexplained investment in the property was Sound during search or otherwise.
ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025
PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO without appreciating or verifying the crucial fact that the Appellant had actually purchased the property in question and had not sold it.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that section 69 could not be invoked as the investments made by the Appellant are duly recorded in books of accounts and no out of books investments were made by the Appellant.
Thai on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that valuation report of the DVO was never confronted to the Appellant during the assessment proceedings and no opportunity to being heard was granted before DVO.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has re to appreciate that no show cause notice was issued before making the addition to the total income.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the approval granted by Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-8, New Delhi u/s 153D of the Act is mechanical in nature and without application of mind.
That the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A) is violative of principles of natural justice.
That the Id. ClT(A) has erred in sustaining the initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act.
That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act.
That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, resign, forge or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice.”
We first take up the appeal of the assessee in the case of Shri Gautam Gupta as the facts are identical in both the appeals. Shri
ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025
PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA
Gautam Gupta filed his return of income on 07.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,92,51,750/-. During the AY 2020-21 the assessee had purchased residential building along with Shri Parveen
Gupta bearing property no. BP-22, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total sale consideration of Rs.9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated
12.09.2019 and the assessee had 50% share in it. On 12.02.2021 a search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee and the assessment for the impugned assessment year was completed on 09.05.2022 u/s 153A read with section 143(3) by making an addition of Rs.8,49,500/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of difference between the value of property shown in the sale deed and fair market value as determined by the DVO as narrated in the assessment order at pages 3 & 4. As stated in the assessment order the details of the property i.e. circle rate, sale consideration, DVO valuation and the difference between DVO and sale consideration are as under:
Property
Description
Circle
Rate/Stamp Duty
Value
Total Sales
Consideration
(A)
Value determined by the DVO
(B)
Addition made by the Ld.AO being difference between column
(A) & (B)
BP-22, West
Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
9,70,06,834
(page 84 of PBK)
9,90,00,000
(page 49 of PBK)
10,06,99,100
(page 2 & 3 of Assessment order)
8,49,500
(16,99,100/2)
(page 3 & 4 of assessment order)
After arriving the difference between the sale consideration and the value determined by the DVO at Rs.16,99,100/- the Assessing Officer
ITA Nos. 2382 & 2383/DEL/2025
PARVEEN GUPTA & GAUTAM GUPTA made an addition of Rs.8,49,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% share in the property and the balance 50% of Rs.8,49,500/- was added in the hands of the co-owner i.e. Parveen Gupta, as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing
Officer.
4. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.2 of grounds of appeal, submitted that reference to DVO is invalid for the reason that the AO merely suspected that value of the property at which it is purchased by the assessee was less than the fair market value. Ld. Counsel referring to the details narrated by the AO at pages 3 & 4 of assessment order submitted that the circle rate/stamp duty value of the property determined by the Sub-