IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6143/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16)

Simmi Batra, Income Tax Officer, C-35, Ground Floor, Ward-32(5), South Extn., Part-I, Vs. Delhi.

New Delhi-110049.

PAN-BBDPB3299M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri K. Sampath, Adv., and Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv.

Department by Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/09/2025

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.06.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-11/10244/2017-18 arising out of the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under appeal, filed her return of income on 07.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.11,44,220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA of the Act”. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The AO observed that during the year under appeal assessee received total sum of Rs.1,41,86,718/- towards 6.25% share jointly hold with her minor son Master Kashish Batra in the property situated at A-10, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The said property was purchased way back and was the property of the firm M/s Batra Bros & Co. where husband of the assessee was one of the partner and after his death assessee alongwith her minor son got the rights to the extent of the share of deceased partner. An agreement to sale was executed between the partners/their heirs of M/s Batra Bros & Co. and M/s Jai Pal Singh & Smt. Sunita Singh. According to the said agreement, this property was sold at a total consideration of Rs.22.70 Cr. out of which assessee alongwith her minor son had received their share in the consideration totaling to Rs.1,41,86,718/-. The assessee stated that the said consideration was invested in acquisition of new house property and accordingly claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO by observing that agreement to sale with Sh. Jagapl Singh & Sunit Singh was not registered and further observed that no details were filed by the assessee that consideration received was kept in separate bank account under capital gains scheme as prescribed under the Act to claim deduction u/s 54F out of Long term capital gains and held the credit of Rs.1,41,87,500/- as unsecured loan and made the addition of the same and further deduction u/s 54F claimed was disallowed.

3. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 25.06.20204 dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the NFAC. [CIT(A)] Delhi erred in confirming following actions of the Assessing Officer:-

i. passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act determining taxable income at Rs.1,53,172/-

against returned income of Rs. 11,44,220/-.

ii. In making an addition of Rs.1,41,87,500/- on account of disallowance of deductions claimed u/s 54/54F of the Act:

The above actions being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”

4. Since, both the grounds of appeal taken by assessee are with respect to the addition of Rs.1,48,75,800/- by holding the same as unexplained credits and further not allowing deduction u/s 54F of the Act, therefore, they are taken together for consideration.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it is seen the amount treated as unsecured loan by the AO was received as share in sale consideration of the property sold in terms of