TRENCHLESS ENGINEERING SEVICES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A", DELHI

BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.143/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

M/s Trenchless Engineering Services Private Limited 2nd C-185, Floor Phase-II, Mayapuri, Delhi 110064 PAN No. AABCT3284 F | Vs. | DCIT Central Circle – 06 New Delhi (APPELLANT) | (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by | Sh. Mayank Patwari, Advocate Respondent by | Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Date of hearing: | 21/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement: | 25/07/2025

ORDER

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] vide order dated 29.11.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 to arises out of the assessment order

dated 30.12.2021 under section 153 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income – tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act'].

- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in eyes of law and on facts. - 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order. - 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to quash the assessment order, which is passed in consequence of proceedings that are time-barred in nature. - 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to quash the assessment order, which is passed in consequence of proceedings that were initiated and concluded without the possession of any incriminating material apart from loose excel sheets. - 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to delete the addition of Rs.1,15,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was done without giving cognizance to the detailed submissions and evidentiary materials place on record. - 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to delete the addition ofRs.3,45,000/- made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

- 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to quash the assessment order, which is passed in consequence of proceedings where sufficient opportunity for cross-examination was not provided. - 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by failing to delete the interest charged under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - 9. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter amend or delete any of the grounds. - 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the Ashish Begwani Group of cases, Sh. Ashish Begwani was found to be involved in facilitation of accommodation entry along with the Kolkata based entry providers Sh. Gopal Kumar Aggarwal and his son Sh. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal. During the search operation various documents related to accommodation entry were seized from various premises of the Group. From the incriminating seized material and the statements of Sh. Gopal Kumar Aggarwal and his son Vikas Kumar Aggarwal it was found that the assessee is a beneficiary who had taken accommodation entry from entities controlled by Sh. Ashish Begwani and others. The assessee filed its original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 29-09-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 5,18,93,030/-. The return of income was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27-

12-2017 and return income was accepted. The AO recorded the satisfaction note on 24-03-2021 and notice issued u/s 153C of the Act on 26-03-2021. In the response of the notice the assessee company filed the return of income at Rs. 5,18,93,030/-. After considering the submission submitted by the assessee, the AO completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- u/s 68 and Rs. 3,45,000/ u/s 69C of the Act.

- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 29-11-2024 sustained the additions made by AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. - 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. - 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on the record. Ld. DR submitted that assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), he has not any sufficient cause for nonappearing. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee either not attended the proceedings or moved adjournment application. Ld. AR submitted that one opportunity of being heard be given to the

assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, we deem fit it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.07.2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Neha, Sr. PS Date: 25.07.2025

Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant

- 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(Appeals) - 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI