Sarika Sachdeva vs ACIT

All these appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 28/08/2020, 15/01/2021 & 28/08/2020, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18 respectively.

The following grounds taken in these appeals are as under:

ITA No.66/Del/2021

The Order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case.

That in the facts of the case and as per law, the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the returned income during the course of assessment u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act, which are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search on the appellant, and contrary to the ratio of various judicial precedents which have held that the scope of assessment which are not pending at the time of conducting of search u/s 153A of the Act, encompasses additions/ disallowance, based on incriminating material found during the course of search only.

That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the Rs.59,8 addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 1,99,500/- on account (Appro of deemed rental income.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.

That because of the COVID pandemic, the appeal could not be filed within the lim period prescribed in the Income Tax Act. However, the Appellant understands t Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. C Extending Limitation due to COVID-19 is still operative and therefore nos application for condonation of delay is being filed with the present appeal.

ITA No.67/Del/2021

The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO to the extent of Rs.5,22,900/- on account of deemed rental income.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.28,40,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained money in the form of cash found to be deposited in the bank account of the Appellant/Assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.

ITA No.68/Del/2021

The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs.6,76,200/- on account of deemed rental income.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.7,80,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained money in the form of cash found to be deposited in the bank account of the Appellant/Assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. That because of the COVID pandemic, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period prescribed in the Income Tax Act. However, the Appellant understands that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.03/2020 Extending Limitation due to Covid-19 is still operative and therefore no separate application for condonation of delay is being filed with the present appeal.

The details of additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2017-18 are as under:-

S.No.

Particulars

Ownership

A.Y 2015-16

A.Y 2016-17

A.Y 2017-18

i

Flat No. 45/1108,DDA

Flats, Kalkaji

Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen

Sachdeva

-

33,000

-

ii

Flat No. 24/770, DDA Flats, Kalkaji

Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen

Sachdeva

84,000

-

1,08,000

iii

Shop No. 8, Ramji Lal complex

Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen

Sachdeva

96,000

-

1,08,000

iv

Flat No.  34/931, DDA Flats, Kalkaji

Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen

Sachdeva

33,000

39,000

42,000

v

1779/7 Govind Puri

Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen

Sachdeva

72,000

78,000

84,000

vi

GF, D-596, C R Park, Delhi

Sarika  achdeva & Naveen

Sachdeva

-

2,76,000

2,88,000

Vii

Basement, D- 596, C R Park,

Delhi

Sarika  Sachdeva &

Naveen Sachdeva

-

2,76,000

2,88,000

viii

Shop No. 32, DDA Complex Market, Govindpuri,

Kalkaji

Sarika Sachdeva & Naveen Sachdeva

-

45,000

48,000

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the husband of the assessee Sh. Naveen Sahcdeva has already offered tax in his Income Tax Return in respect of the above properties u/s 139(1) of the Act as well as u/s 153A of the Act, which has been duly accepted by the Settlement Commission vide its order dated 28/09/2023. The assessee has also produced property wise breakup of rental income of Sh. Naveen Sachdeva for Assessment Year 2015-16 onward at page No. 123-125 of the paper book.

Considering the fact that the husband of the assessee has already offered the rental income of the aforesaid properties which has been accepted by the Settlement Commission which is evident from order of the Settlement Commission and the property wise break up of rental income of Sh. Naveen Sachdeva for Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards. If the subject additions are sustained by confirming the order of Ld.CIT (A), it will amounts to double taxation, therefore, the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in the above said captioned appeals are hereby deleted, ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 66/Del/2021, 67/Del/2021 & 68/Del/2021 are allowed.