Case LawHigh Court › Ita/690/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Ita/690/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shiv Narain Aggarwal Decd Thr Lrs

High Court 18 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Ita/690/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shiv Narain Aggarwal Decd Thr Lrs
Date of order
18 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/690/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shiv Narain Aggarwal Decd Thr Lrs, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

7o L8.O8.20L1 Present: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel for theRevenue.Mr.Piyush Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent/assessee. +tTA 689/2010rrA 690/2010trA 702120LorrA 703/20r.0 (common orders)In all these cases, assessment was carried out under [Section]1534 of the Income-Tax Act [pursuant ]to search at the [premises of ][the]assessees carried out by the Department under Section 132 of theAct. While carrying out the assessment, the Assessing [Officer found]that one of the properties i.e. 101, Ground Floor, Bangala Sahib [Road,]New Delhi, was acquired by Shri Bhagirath Agrawal and Suraj [Devi ][at]a cost of t62,50,000/-. This [property ]was rented to Indian OverseasBank. The said property was purchased in the [joint ]names withdifferent shares given to different assessees. The matter was referredto the Valuation Cell of the Department under Section 142 [(1A) ]of theAct. The Valuer valued the property at much higher rate than theconsideration shown in the sale deed and on this basis additions weremade in the hands of all these assessee, under Section 69 of the Actas'unexplained investment'. These additions were deleted by the CIT [(A) ]and the order of theCIT [(A) ]has been affirmed by the ITAT. Vide impugned order the ITAT decided the cases of all [joint ]owners [who ][purchased ][the ][said]property which includes Smt. Suraj Devi, Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal,late Sh. Shiv Narain Aggarwal etc. The Department [had ][filed ][appeal ][in]the case of Smt. Suraj DeVi under Section 260-A [of the ][Act ][to ][this]Court which was registered as ITA SII1ZOLO and has been [dismissed]by a Division Bench of this court [vide ][orders ][dated ][13th ][August, ][2010.]Following that order, appeals of other co-owners/assessees [i.e. ] 155112010, ITA I37O|2OL0 and [1660I2OIO ][were ][also dismissed.] Following those orders, these appeals [are ][also ][dismissed ][as ][no]question of law arises in these appeals. t\*\ [6\]n.rJr.ffil,J.6\-e4M.L. MEHTA, J, AUGUST I.8, 2OI.1skb
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan