AKJ METALS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5 (1), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3483/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2022-23) AKJ Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Unit 408, 4th Floor Super Area Ward – 51(1) Express Tower, Plot C-172 Delhi Naniwala Complex, Azadpur Adarsh Nagar, Delhi – 110 033 PAN No. AATCA 0524 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Vineet Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 06.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 06.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 30.01.2026 arising from the assessment order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax

ITA No. 3483/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2022-23] AKJ Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Department, Delhi under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies his liability to tax as determined and computed by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.4,02,08,266 made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged suppression of sales under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is arbitrary, unjustified and not sustainable in law. 3. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before passing the order under section 250 which is against the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law in upholding the addition of Rs.13,17,240/- made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed by the appellant under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,40,633/- made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance of bonus claimed by the appellant u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.8,58,28,175 made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance of purchases, which is arbitrary, unjustified and not sustainable in law. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty Proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 8. The appellant prays for leave to amend, modify, or introduce any additional grounds of appeal at any time before the final date of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. 9. PRAYER: The addition so made by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. Alternatively, any other order as may be deemed fit by Your Honours in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.”

Page 2 of 6

ITA No. 3483/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2022-23] AKJ Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and primarily engaged in recycling metals and trading and manufacturing non-ferrous metal products like Copper & Brass Strips, Sheets, Ingots & Tin Soldiers. The assessee company has closed its manufacturing activities w. e. f. 01.04.2022. The assessee had filed its ITR on 19.10.2022 declaring a loss of Rs 20,99,929/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the large increase in unsecured loans during the year, High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts, Opening Written Down Value of current year is greater than closing Written Down Value of previous year, Mismatch in amount paid to an employee as bonus or commission reported in Audit report and ITR. The Ld. AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) on March 26, 2024, wherein he disallowed depreciation amounting to Rs. 13,17,240/-, disallowed bonus salary expenses of Rs.1,40,633/-, disallowed purchases worth Rs. 8,58,28,175/-, and made an addition on account of suppression of sales amounting to Rs.4,02,08,266/- in the assessee's case. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the further aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before us.

Page 3 of 6

ITA No. 3483/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2022-23] AKJ Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 5. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and prayed for setting aside the order to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 6. Per contra, learned DR did not raise any serious objection and relied upon the order of authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) had given opportunities to the assessee and in absence of any response from the assessee, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. We are of the considered view that in the interest of natural justice, the CIT(A) may give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent the case and therefore, we are of the view that the issues of the case be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit documents/evidence as required by the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is decided in aforesaid terms. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Page 4 of 6

ITA No. 3483/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2022-23] AKJ Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date: 13.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 5 of 6