Case Number: ITA 5513/DEL/2019
Appellant: Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi
Respondent: DCIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Case Filed On: 2019-06-24
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-06-14
Pronounced On: 2022-06-14
Before: Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member
For Assessee: Shri Shrey Jain and Shri Anshul Mittal, Advocates
For Revenue: Ms. Garima Sharma, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 14.06.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 14.06.2022
This appeal was filed by Dr. Manju Dang against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 08.05.2019, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue in the appeal was the addition of Rs. 11,34,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on a notional basis for income from house property.
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 11,34,000/- on account of income from house property situated at D-1, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, on a notional basis against the actual rent received as per the lease agreement dated 01-10-2009.
2. The CIT (A) was incorrect in ignoring the rent agreement, municipal valuations, and legal disputes related to the property, leading to the addition of Rs. 11,34,000/-.
3. The appellant requested the option to add, modify, amend, or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, with all grounds being without prejudice to each other.
The appellant, represented by Shri Shrey Jain and Shri Anshul Mittal, argued that the addition was based on notional income rather than actual rent received. They emphasized the validity of the rent agreement, municipal valuations, and ongoing legal disputes, which were not adequately considered by the AO and CIT (A).
The respondent, represented by Ms. Garima Sharma, Sr. DR, supported the AO’s addition, arguing that the notional income was a fair representation of the property’s rental value.
The Tribunal reviewed the submissions, the assessment order, and the CIT(A)’s findings. During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel informed the Tribunal that the appeal had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (VSVS), and that the Designated Authority had issued Form-5 under VSVS. As a result, the appeal was considered infructuous and was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under VSVS and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it clarified that if for any reason the disputes under the appeal were not settled under VSVS, the appellant could approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with the law.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.06.2022.
Members:
(Saktijit Dey) Judicial Member
(Anadee Nath Misshra) Accountant Member
Copy forwarded to:
By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
House Property Income Dispute: Dr. Manju Dang vs. DCIT for Assessment Year 2014-15
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform