No Separate Rent provided by Co-tenants: ITAT Grants relief to Landlord based on Tenant’s Bank Records [Read Order]
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved that the actual rent received during the year was ₹9 lakh as declared, and the allegation that the assessee received additional rent of ₹8.20 lakh in cash was incorrect.
![No Separate Rent provided by Co-tenants: ITAT Grants relief to Landlord based on Tenant’s Bank Records [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/20/2120903-no-separate-rent-provided-by-co-tenants-taxscan.webp "No Separate Rent provided by Co-tenants: ITAT Grants relief to Landlord based on Tenant’s Bank Records [Read Order]")
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to a landlord after holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly assumed that separate rent was being paid by two co-tenants. The tribunal noted that the rental agreement was made on the co-tenants together and they are paying the rent together. Therefore, the assumption of ‘separate rent’ by...
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to a landlord after holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly assumed that separate rent was being paid by two co-tenants.
The tribunal noted that the rental agreement was made on the co-tenants together and they are paying the rent together. Therefore, the assumption of ‘separate rent’ by the AO cannot sustain.
Rajesh Kumar Mangla, the landlord was issued an income tax notice alleging that the assessee was receiving rent of ₹1,72,000 per month and had not disclosed rent for certain periods. The assessee filed its income declaring ₹33.02 lakh.
According to the appellant-assessee, his property was let out at a monthly rent of ₹1,80,000 jointly to two tenants on a sharing basis, and that he had given ₹9 lakh as rental income for the period November 2020 to March 2021, while the property remained vacant for the rest of the year.
The tenants also confirmed that rent of ₹9 lakh had been paid to the assessee and his wife.
However, the AO continued on the assumption that the rent of ₹1,72,000 was being paid by both tenants separately, and treated the balance amount as undisclosed rent.
The CIT(A) upheld the addition mainly on the ground that there was a mismatch between rent deed figures and actual receipts and that TDS details were available.
The bench of Satbeer Singn Godara (Judicial member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant member) found that the assessee had submitted documents, including confirmations from both tenants, the same rent agreement, and the tenants’ bank statements showing rent payments.
The appellate tribunal noted that the figure of ₹1,72,000 referred by the AO pertained to May and June 2021, which did not fall in the relevant previous year for AY 2021-22.
Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee proved that the actual rent received during the year was ₹9 lakh as declared, and the allegation that the assessee received additional rent of ₹8.20 lakh in cash was incorrect.
Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the addition of ₹5.74 and allowed the assessee’s appeal.Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
