G.K. REALTORS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(5), 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. 3469/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) G. K. Realtors Vs. ITO B-17, 2nd Floor, Kalkaji Ward – 30(5) South Delhi – 110019 Delhi PAN No. AAIFG 4039 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri C. S. Ananad, Adv. and Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2026

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 17.02.2026 arising from the assessment order passed by NFAC (hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 20.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2019-20.

ITA No. 3469/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] G.K Realtors vs. ITO 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. “The learned CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the notice dt. 14.03.2023 issued by the learned AO under clause (b) of section 148A for AY 2019-20. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the order dt.30.03.2023 passed by the learned AO under clause (d) of section 148A for AY 2019-20. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the notice dt.30.03.2023 issued by the learned AO u/s 148 for AY 2019-20. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the Show Cause Notice dt.12.03.2024 issued by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [fixing compliance for 19.03.2024 18:00 hours]. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not annulling the assessment order by holding it bad in law. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.5000000/- (representing the receipt from M/s BKR Capital Ltd. through banking channels, which amount stood refunded) made u/s 68, particularly when after discharging its onus in terms of section 68, the assessee had requested the learned AO to provide the pre- recorded statement of Mr. Bajrang Lal Periwal -the promoter director of M/s BKR Capital Ltd. and also an opportunity to cross- examine the said Mr. Bajrang Lal Periwal. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.13419563/- made u/s 68, more particularly when even according to the learned AO the amounts of purchases recorded in the books of account (and shown in the ITR Form) exceeded the amounts of purchases appearing in the reconciliation statement. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the invocation of the provisions of section 68 with regard to the addition of Rs.13419563/-, is unlawful. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that charging income tax & surcharge on the amount of addition of Rs.13419563/- at special (higher) rate as per the provisions of section 115BBE, is unlawful. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.124999/- made u/s 68, more particularly when even according to the learned AO the amounts of sales recorded in the books of account (and shown in the ITR Form) exceeded the amounts of sales appearing in the reconciliation statement.

Page 2 of 6

ITA No. 3469/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] G.K Realtors vs. ITO 11. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the invocation of the provisions of section 68 with regard to the addition of Rs.124999/-, is unlawful. 12. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that charging income tax & surcharge on the amount of addition of Rs.124999/- at special (higher) rate as per the provisions of section 115BBE, is unlawful.”

Page 3 of 6

ITA No. 3469/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] G.K Realtors vs. ITO assessment order, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us. 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.

Page 4 of 6

ITA No. 3469/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] G.K Realtors vs. ITO 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 12.08.2026 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