HARJEET SINGH KALRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5446/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 October 2025AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition was unjustifiable as the tenant had vacated the property in a prior year.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was filed with a significant delay. The lower authorities added Rs. 2 lakhs as deemed annual letting value of a shop based on the preceding year's declared rental income.

What were the issues?

Whether the deemed annual letting value added by the lower authorities was justified when the property was vacated by the tenant in a previous year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 29.10.2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. ACIT, Sh. Harjeet Singh Kalra, 584, Gandhi Cloth Market, Circle-29(1), Delhi New Delhi PAN: AADPK1374Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Harjeet Singh Kalra (Assessee) Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061273623(1), dated 21.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 503 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Next comes the sole substantive issue of deemed annual letting value of the assessee’s shop no. 1, Devnagar, amounting to Rs.2 lakhs added by both the learned lower authorities. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of the impugned addition that the same is very much based on the assessee’s declared rental income in the preceding assessment year.

4.

That being the case, a perusal of the case records indicates that the assessee’s tenant Mohd. Arfi, s/o Gulam Rasood had already vacated the above stated house property, shop no. 1, Devnagar on 13.08.2016; and, therefore, his annual letting value computed for the entire relevant previous year could not be held as justifiable in nature. The same is directed to be deleted therefore. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →