ARIZONA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

ITA Nos.668/Del/2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2013-14

ARIZONA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED,
211, 2nd Floor, Hemkunt Chambers,
89, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
बनाम
Vs.
ITO,
Ward 3(1),
New Delhi.
PAN No.AADCD7117M
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent

Assessee by Shri Sudeep Vijayan, Adv.
Revenue by Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
28.05.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 23.07.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.
PCIT, Delhi dated 20.12.2023 passed u/s 263 of the Act for the AY
2013-14. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to consider unsecured loan received from Starpoint Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.2 crores as against

ITA Nos.668/Del/2024

Rs.1 crore adopted by the AO in the original assessment which was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition made u/s 68 in respect of unsecured loans was already subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and therefore the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and revise the assessment order directing the AO to consider the unsecured loan amount from Starpoint Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.2 crores.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Ld. PCIT.
4. Heard rival contentions and perused the materials placed before us. In this case assessment was reopened u/s 147 and reassessment was completed on 29.03.2022 u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.30,90,00,000/-. The AO while completing the assessment added an amount of Rs.30,90,00,000/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 in respect of unsecured loans from 7 parties as referred to at page 2 of the assessment order.
5. The Ld. PCIT issued show-cause notice to the assessee requiring the Assessee to explanation as to why the assessment order passed

ITA Nos.668/Del/2024

u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the following:
a) The AO while completing the assessment considered only an amount of Rs.1 crore as unexplained cash credit in respect of loan received from M/s Starpoint Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. as against Rs. 2 crores during the relevant assessment year.
b) Assessing Officer inadvertently not considered Rs.78,18,870/- as income from other sources which was offered by the assessee in its return of income.
c) The AO wrongly charged tax at normal rate instead of special rate u/s 115BBE of the Act.
6. In response to the show-cause notice the assessee submitted that the AO while completing the original assessment u/s 143(3) examined the unsecured loans received from Starpoint Supplier Pvt.
Ltd. Further the AO even while completing the reassessment u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 the transaction between the assessee and the Starpoint Supplier Pvt. Ltd. has already been examined in detail by the AO and therefore the same transaction cannot be re-visited at third time in the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Before us the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that since the assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of unsecured loans which was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 including the unsecured loan from Starpoint Supplier Pvt. Ltd.

ITA Nos.668/Del/2024

the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order.
7. We have perused the appeal filed by the assessee on 18.04.2022 before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for the AY 2013-14 against the assessment order passed u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessee contested the addition of Rs.30,90,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act/- made by the AO. We observe that the said amount of Rs.30,90,00,000/- which was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 by the AO includes the unsecured loan from Starpoint Supplier
Pvt. Ltd. Thus, since the transaction of loan between the assessee and Starpoint Supplier Pvt. Ltd. for the AY 2013-14 was subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) the Ld. PCIT could not have exercised the juri iction u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld.
CIT(Appeals) having coterminous powers as that of the AO has all the powers to correct the mistakes, if any, made by the AO and also enhance the income. Therefore, since the transaction between the assessee and Starpoint Supplier Pvt. Ltd. in respect of unsecured loan during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013-14 was already subject matter before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we hold that invoking the provisions u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT is against the law.

ITA Nos.668/Del/2024

Therefore, to this extent, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
8. In respect of other two issues on which the revision order was passed by the Ld. PCIT is concerned, the assessee has neither raised any ground nor there was any argument advanced by the Ld.
Counsel in the course of hearing. Therefore, we are not expressing our opinion on these issues.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23/07/2025 (S RIFAUR RAHMAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 23.07.2025
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.