AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 888 & 889/Del/2026 for assessment years 1997-18 & 1998-99, arise against the Commissioner o f Income Tax/National Face less Appeal Centre (for short, “the CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DINs & orders No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083341052(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2025-26 / 1083341052(1), bo th dated 05.12.2025, involving procee dings u/s 143(3 ) of the Income T ax Act, 1961 ; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
The assessee’s ‘lead’ appeal ITA No. 888/Del/2026 herein for A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds:
“1.That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.63,44,502/- made by AO under the head 'Income from House Property' on account of notional annual letting value in respect of unsold vacant flats and commercial space held as stock in trade by the company.
1.1That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in upholding action of Assessing Officer in taxing alleged notional ALV of flats and spaces lying unsold in closing stock under the head 'Income From House Property' and also taxing the same closing stock under the head 'Profit and Gain of Business or Profession' in the same assessment year. This results in multiplicity of taxation on the assessee.
1.2That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in upholding action of Assessing Officer in taxing notional ALV of flats and spaces lying unsold in closing stock under the head 'Income From House Property' on the basis of self-occupation of these assets, even though these assets are not habitable and after taking possession the owner have to do lot of things to make a particular unit habitable.
1.3That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in upholding action of Assessing Officer in taxing notional ALV of farm land lying unsold in closing stock under the head 'Income From House Property' without taking into consideration direction of Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi in ITA No. 1254/ Del/ 2009. The copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT was duly submitted before Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
2.That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs.16,18,94,009/- made u/s 43CA of Income Tax Act 1961, and passing a cryptic order without taking into consideration the written submission and DVO valuation reports submitted during the course of hearing.
2.1That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in not allowing benefit of 10% tolerance limit inserted by the Finance Act, 2020, to the value of properties where difference in value of DVO valuation and actual consideration received is less than 10%, as has been allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of assessee in ITA No. 6626/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15.
3.That all the above grounds and sub-grounds have to be read conjunctively and also independent of each other.
4.That the above ground(s) of appeal are to be considered separately and without prejudice to one another.
5.That the appellant assessee craves, leaves to add, alter, amend, substitute, withdraw or forego any of the ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
6.That the order of Learned CIT (A) is bad in law and wrong on facts of the case and is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as has been passed without taking into consideration the written submission of the assessee and without providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant assessee to meet the merits of its case.”
Learned counsel next submits very fairly that so far as the assessee’s above former substantive ground relating to assessment of its notional annual leading value of unsold stock in trade as income from “house” property is concerned, the same is admittedly no more res integra since decided in the Revenue’s favour in CIT vs Ansal Housing Finance of Leasing Company Limited (2013) 213 Taxmann.com 143(Del). We appreciate the assessee’s fair stand and uphold the learned lower authorities’ action under challenge in very terms therefore.
Next comes the latter issue of the assessee’s section 43CA addition amounting to Rs. 16,18,94,009/- made in the assessment order and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Learned counsel herein places on record the CIT(A)/NFAC’s recent section 154 r.w.s 250 order dated 23.03.2026 that once the relief herein already stands granted, it not more wishes to press for the same which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus reject the instant latter ground as not pressed. Its instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 888/Del/2026 is dismissed.
Same order follow in the assessee’s appeal ITA No. 889/Del/2026 since raising identical twin issues.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 888 & 889/Del/2026 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.