LIFESTYLE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, B: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 2154/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Lifestyle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income 3, Munirka Marg, Vasant Vihar, Tax, New Delhi-110057 Vs Cetnral Circle-5, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. PAN- AAACL9922B Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.12.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 04.03.2025 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24.

ITA No.- 2154/Del/2026 Lifestyle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Incometax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in the case of the Appellant for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “A.Y.”) 2023-24 is erroneous and has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- by treating the receipts from (i) Vijay Singla (Rs. 3,00,00,000/-) and (ii) Jagan Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-) as ‘unexplained’ despite the amounts being recorded in the Appellant’s regular books and received through banking channels, and without any independent enquiry or verification. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- by invoking section 68 of the Act, whereas the Assessing Officer had made the addition under section 69A of the Act, and the Ld. CIT(A) could not have substituted the very basis of the addition by applying a different charging provision, and such action is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,31,00,000/-, in respect of credits received from (i) M/s ADA Creations (Rs. 3,00,00,000/-) and (ii) Saif Ahmad (Rs. 1,31,00,000/-), under section 69A of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant had furnished its ledger accounts and bank statements and had explained the business nature of the receipts, and the addition was made without making any inquiry or verification. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid addition of Rs. 4,31,00,000/- made by the AO under section 69A of the Act, which section is inapplicable in the case of the Appellant.”

ITA No.- 2154/Del/2026 Lifestyle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its original return for A.Y. 2023-24 on 30.12.2023, declaring loss of Rs. 47,14,311/-. Subsequently, a search was conducted in Saluja Group of cases including the assessee on 09.06.2022. The case was centralized and return for A.Y. 2023-24 was selected for complete scrutiny. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 04.03.2025 at assessed income of Rs. 12,66,99,596/- after making the following additions: -

(i) Addition u/s 69A -Rs. 11,58,53,000/- (ii) Addition on account of disallowance of municipal taxes -Rs. 1,08,46,596/-

4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 12.12.2025, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and allow the claim of municipal taxes disallowed by him. In respect of addition u/s 69A, part relief was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) and balance addition to the extent of Rs. 4 cr. u/s 68 and Rs. 4.31 cr. u/s 69A of the Act was confirmed. 4.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 4 cr. u/s 68 of the Act, when the addition was made u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the assessee is aggrieved that the additions were confirmed without any enquiry or verification. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR as none appeared on behalf of the assessee and have also perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we deem it 3

ITA No.- 2154/Del/2026 Lifestyle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 17.07.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,