Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Shriti Verma — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Shriti Verma — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-Revenue; all four appeals (ITA 395/2026, 402/2026, 404/2026, 412/2026) rejected. Ancillary CM applications for exemption and for condonation of delay (3 days in filing, 16 days in re-filing) were allowed and disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Authority (CIT(A)-31, New Delhi) and the Tribunal were legally justified in setting aside the protective assessment order dated 27.12.2018 passed on the respondent-assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. +2 more

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, the Court held that no interference is warranted with the impugned Tribunal orders under this Court's limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act of 1961.

Ratio / Principle

The mere fact that Ms. Ritu Verma stated that the property would vest in the respondent-assessee after her demise cannot change the legal position.

Key takeaways

Simply because the respondent-assessee is likely to inherit the property, no addition can be made in her hands, that too in the year under consideration.ratio¶¶48
The Court found no substance in the Revenue's apprehension that Ms. Ritu Verma could later change her version and take the plea that the property belongs to her daughter, the respondent-assessee.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Direct taxation — Appeal under Section 260A, Income Tax Act, 1961 — Protective assessment — Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 vis-a-vis Income Tax Act, 1961. The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1 challenged the ITAT (Delhi Bench 'G') orders dated 04.11.2025 in ITA Nos. 4483-4486/Del/2024 (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15) whereby the Tribunal, following CIT(A)-31, set aside the protective assessment order dated 27.12.2018 framed on Ms. Shriti Verma. The AO under the Act of 2015 had concluded (order dated 06.12.2021) that the undisclosed foreign assets in STEL and Master Experts Investments Ltd are beneficially owned by Ms. Ritu Verma, not the assessee, and made no addition. Held: merely because the assessee is likely to inherit the property on Ms. Ritu Verma's demise, no addition can be made in her hands for the year under consideration; the statement that the property would vest after demise cannot change the legal position; no substance in the apprehension arising from the pendency of Ms. Ritu Verma's own appeal; no interference warranted under the Court's limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A. All four appeals rejected. (Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar, JJ.)

$~2, 3, 4 & 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ITA 395/2026

- ITA 402/2026

- ITA 404/2026

- ITA 412/2026

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC, and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSC and Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Adv.

versus

SHRITI VERMA

.....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R % 19.05.2026

CM APPL. 31909/2026 (exemption) in ITA 395/2026 CM APPL. 32451/2026 (exemption) in ITA 402/2026 CM APPL. 32742/2026 (exemption) in ITA 404/2026 CM APPL. 33733/2026 (exemption) in ITA 412/2026

Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

CM APPL. 31910/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 395/2026 CM APPL. 32452/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 402/2026 CM APPL. 32743/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 404/2026 CM APPL. 33734/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 412/2026

Page 1 of 5

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:02

For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 3 days in filing the appeals is condoned.

The applications stand disposed of.

CM APPL. 31911/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 395/2026 CM APPL. 32453/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 402/2026 CM APPL. 32744/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 404/2026 CM APPL. 33735/2026 (delay in re-filing) in ITA 412/2026

For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 16 days in refiling the appeals is condoned.

The applications stand disposed of.

ITA 395/2026 ITA 402/2026 ITA 404/2026 ITA 412/2026

By way of the instant appeals, the appellant has challenged the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: ‘G’, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ ) in ITA No. 4483/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14, ITA No. 4484/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13, ITA No. 4485/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 and ITA No. 4486/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15.

The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the proceedings to frame assessment in hands of the respondent on protective basis, by observing that he had initiated the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 ( hereinafter referred to “the Act of 2015” ).

At the time of passing the assessment order, the AO made it clear that since the income cannot be taxed under both the Acts, namely, the Act of 2015 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of

Page 2 of 5

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:02

1961’ ), the assessment made under the Act of 1961 shall remain protective. 10. It is an admitted fact that subsequently by way of an order dated 06.12.2021, another AO under the Act of 2015 concluded the proceedings against the respondent-assessee by observing thus:

“7.4 In view of the totality of circumstances, it is clear that for STEL, Ms. Shriti Verma is clearly not the beneficial owner. In-fact, as per the express instruction of Ms. Ritu Verma, the assessee, Ms. Shriti Verma would have become the beneficiary only in the event of the death of Ms. Ritu Verma.

7.4.1 Even for the case of Master Experts Investments Ltd, the control and ownership of the assets clearly lies with Ms. Ritu Verma. Assets have been received in the entity Master Experts Investments Ltd from STEL, an entity clearly beneficially owned by Ms. Ritu Verma. The inclusion of the name of Ms. Shriti Verma in the list of beneficial owners of Master Experts Investments Ltd, in addition to Ms. Ritu Verma clearly stems from the intention of Ms. Ritu Verma to bestow the assets held in Master Experts Investments Ltd to Ms. Shriti Verma, an intention clearly expressed through her letter dated 09.06.2009 issues in respect of STEL. This however does not make such assets taxable in the hands of Ms. Shriti Verma. It is clear that such undisclosed foreign assets in the form of assets held in STEL, and Master Experts Investments Ltd have Ms. Ritu Verma as the beneficial owner.

7.4.2 In view of the above, I find that the various foreign assets forming the basis of issue of the notice u/s 10(1) dated 30.12.2020 in the case of the assessee are actually not held by the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma as the beneficial owner but are held by Ms. Ritu Verma as the beneficial owner. Accordingly, no addition is being made herein so far as the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma is concerned.”

Page 3 of 5

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:02

In view of the above observations made by the AO in the order passed under the Act of 2015 that the respondent-assessee was not a beneficial owner, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi so also the Tribunal set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2018.

Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the Appellate Authority was not legally justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2018.

He further submitted that the appeal filed by the mother of the assessee, namely Ms. Ritu Verma is still pending and until such proceedings attain finality, no clean chit could be given to the respondent-assessee, who is the daughter of said Ms Ritu Verma.

He argued that according to the submissions made by the respondentassessee during the proceedings under the Act 2015, the property would vest in the respondent after demise of Ms. Ritu Verma. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that no interference is warranted under this Court’s limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act of 1961.

The assessee’s mother Ms. Ritu Verma took the plea before the Authority under the Act of 2015 that firstly, she is not the beneficial owner of the subject property while also taking an alternative plea that if the property is held to be owned by her as the beneficial owner, then the property would ultimately devolve in Shriti Verma-assessee after her demise.

The mere fact that she stated that the property would vest in the respondent-assessee after her demise, cannot change the legal position. In

Page 4 of 5

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:02

other words, simply because the respondent-assessee is likely to inherit such property, the addition cannot be made, that too in the year under consideration.

We do not find any substance in the apprehension expressed by Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant that tomorrow Ms. Ritu Verma can change her version and take the plea that the property belong to her daughter namely, the respondent-assessee.

The appeals are, therefore, rejected.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

MAY 19, 2026/ dd

Page 5 of 5

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 11:56:02

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi in ITA No. 4483/Del/2024 (AY 2013-14), ITA No. 4484/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13), ITA No. 4485/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) and ITA No. 4486/Del/2024 (AY 2014-15), challenged by the appellant-Revenue.¶¶28
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi · 04.11.2025
Prior proceeding
The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and framed assessment in the hands of the respondent on protective basis.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Since the income could not be taxed under both the Act of 2015 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment made under the Act of 1961 (assessment order dated 27.12.2018) was expressly left protective.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
By order dated 06.12.2021, another AO under the Act of 2015 concluded the proceedings against the respondent-assessee, recording that the foreign assets (STEL and Master Experts Investments Ltd) are beneficially owned by Ms. Ritu Verma and not by Ms. Shriti Verma, and made no addition.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
In view of the AO's finding under the Act of 2015 that the respondent-assessee was not the beneficial owner, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi and the Tribunal set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2018.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the appeal of the assessee's mother, Ms. Ritu Verma, is still pending and that until it attains finality no 'clean chit' could be given to the respondent-assessee.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Exemption applications (CM APPL. 31909/2026, 32451/2026, 32742/2026, 33733/2026) allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Delay of 3 days in filing the appeals condoned (CM APPL. 31910/2026, 32452/2026, 32743/2026, 33734/2026).¶¶22
Prior proceeding
Delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeals condoned (CM APPL. 31911/2026, 32453/2026, 32744/2026, 33735/2026).¶¶25