PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 48 / 2025HC Delhi03 March 20252 pages
For Petitioner: SANJAY KUMAR
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal for hearing on specific questions of law. The court did not decide the merits of the case but framed the issues for determination.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an ITAT order concerning AY 2017-18. The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs.7,00,27,585/-. The appeal was admitted on specific questions of law.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT correctly deleted an addition without appreciating the assessee's failure to discharge onus under Section 68 by not furnishing PAN of 14 parties. Also, whether the ITAT correctly interpreted and applied Section 43CA regarding property sale rates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 68,Section 43CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 48/2025

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocates.

versus

ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

03.03.2025 CM APPL. 12463/2025 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) 1. Cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of.

ITA 48/2025 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in respect of the respondent/Assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 4. After hearing Mr. Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant, we admit the appeal limited to the following questions of law which reads as under:- “A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 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 27/03/2026 at 12:05:01

the Ld. ITAT was correct in confirming the finding of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,27,585/- without appreciating the facts that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act by non- furnishing of PAN of 14 parties to whom sales of flats have been made?

B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT had not appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to provide justification as to why some of the properties were sold below DLC rate and others above DLC rate?

C. Whether the provision of section 43CA of the Act has been correctly interpreted and applied by the lower authorities to the facts of the present case?

5.

Issue notice to the respondent by all permissible modes, returnable on 27.05.2025.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 3, 2025 yrj

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 27/03/2026 at 12:05:01

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →