COSMIC NUTRACOS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1035/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Cosmic Nutracos Solutions Vs. ACIT Private Limited Central Circle – 5 A-89, Okhla Phase-II, Okhla Delhi Industrial Estate, S.O. Tehkhand South East Delhi, New Delhi-110020 PAN No. AADCC1133A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate Ms. Aditri Taneja, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 15/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15/07/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-24, Delhi for the 2022-23. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

mind by the approving authority. The assumption of jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the facts of the present case, are therefore being without valid sanction and are bad in law, being void ab initio and without jurisdiction. 4. That the notice issued under Section 148 and the reassessment framed under Section 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer has failed to record the requisite satisfaction in terms of Explanation 2(iii) to Section 148 of the Act. 5. That the notice issued and the consequent assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the addition made under Section 37(1) is based solely on borrowed satisfaction allegedly arising from search operations conducted in the case of third parties, without any incriminating material or evidence found against the Appellant or relatable to it. The impugned addition is not based on any material found during the search and is therefore liable to be quashed. 6. That, without prejudice to the other grounds, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") i contravention to provisions of Section 151A of the Act read with Notification No. 18/2022/File No. 370142/S.O. 1466(E) dated 29.03.2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT").

confirming the addition of Rs. 17,74,180/- under Section 37(1) of the Act as alleged bogus expenses, which is illegal, bad in law, without any basis and is liable to be deleted. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,74,359/- made by the AO on account of unexplained income. The same is unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be deleted. 13. That, without prejudice, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, additions being based on digital data, without the certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, are illegal, bad in law and unsustainable. 14. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the leamed AO/CIT(A) haserred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. 15. That without prejudice, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, additions having been made without giving opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Assessing Officer, are illegal, bad in law, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the leamed AO/CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing adequate opportunity of

being heard to the assessee in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. 17. That without prejudice, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, additions having been made without confronting the material basis which the same were made and hence. the same cannot be sustained. 18 That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made are based on surmises and conjectures, without bringing enough evidence on record. Hence, the additions made are illegal, bad in law and highly excessive. The addition made cannot be justified by any material available on record. 19. That in the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents, explanation filed by the Appellant and the material available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and has been wrongly ignored. 20. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in upholding by charging interest under section 234A/234B/234C/234F of the Act. The interest has been also wrongly worked out. 21. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) r.w.s.270A(9)(a) of the Act.

That appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing

Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views i.e. both accepting or partly allowing or rejecting the same in entirety; as the case may be.

Sd/- Sd/-

[SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.09.2026 Neha, Sr. PS