PEBBLES INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5530/Del/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 M/s. Pebbles Infradevelopers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax, S-116, Basement (Behind S- Central Circle-06, 240 Corner) Jhandewalan Extn. Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi Delhi-110048 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCP3548Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Nitin Sharma, CA Sh. Parv Bansal, Ca Sh. Neeraj Singh, CA Respondent by : Sh. Hauthang Kilong, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.09.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 16.07.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 5530/Del/2025 Pebbles Infradevelopers P. ltd.

referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2022 of the Learned Assessing Officer / DCIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 5530/Del/2025 Pebbles Infradevelopers P. ltd.

received from the AO of searched person, satisfaction note was recorded by AO of the Assessee. Notice u/s 153C of the act dated 25.02.2022 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and questionnaire was issued on 14.11.2022, the assessee made submissions dated 22.11.2022. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.11.2022 was issued, assessee made submissions. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 28.12.2022 made addition of Rs. 1 crore u/s 68 of the act on account of unexplained credits and addition of Rs. 3 lacs u/s 69C of the act on account of unexplained expenditure.

2.1 Against the assessment order dated 28.12.2022, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2025.

“1. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of ₹1,03,00,000/-made by the Ld. AO. 2. That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed without DIN as mandated by CBDT circular 19/2019. not press. 3. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned appellate order without properly considering the submissions filed by the appellant. 4. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. AO, despite the fact that the satisfaction notes recorded by the AO of the assessee as well as the AO of the searched person are undated, general in nature, and do not specify any incriminating material

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5530/Del/2025 Pebbles Infradevelopers P. ltd.

belonging to the assessee which has a bearing on the income of the assessee for a particular assessment year. 5. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Ld. AO, ignoring the specific contention of the appellant that the assessment was barred by limitation, as in the case of assessment under section 153C of the Act, the period of limitation is required to be reckoned from the date on which the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee and satisfaction is recorded, and not from the date of search. 6. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. AO without ensuring that the objections raised by the assessee were disposed of by way of a speaking order. 7. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Ld. AO without affording the appellant an opportunity of cross-examination, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order wherein the statement of the searched person has been misreported and wrongly relied upon. 9. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition under section 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee had duly furnished all essential documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender. The loan was obtained through proper banking channels and was subsequently repaid through proper banking channels, and therefore, the provisions of section 68 of the Act were not applicable. 10. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts in-sustaining the addition on the alleged ground of commission payment, despite the fact that the assessee had categorically submitted that no commission was paid for availing the loan. 11. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 4. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that the ground No. 2 of the appeal is not pressed. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed as not pressed.

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 5530/Del/2025 Pebbles Infradevelopers P. ltd.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03.09.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI