AGF FINLEASE (INDIA) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DELHI

DIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

ITA No.5117/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] AGF Finlease (India) Limited, Income Tax Officer, Nit No.306, D-7, District Centre, Ward-1(1), Pearl Business Park, Netaji Vs C.R. Building, Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110002 Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi-110034 PAN-AAACA8343F Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee by Shri Naman Singla, CA Respondent/Revenue by Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026

ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 23.06.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 06.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.5117/Del/2025

Additions made without appreciating facts of the case: 1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO') and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)) erred in making the addition of Rs. 2,56,51,400 without appreciating the facts of the case and without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite the Assessee's full cooperation during the assessment proceedings. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 29,54,500 on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the addition may please be deleted. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,12,27,000 on account of unsecured loans without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the addition may please be deleted. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,13,72,000 on account of share premium without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the addition may please be deleted. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 97,902 on account of provision against assets, without appreciating that the Assessee is a lease finance company and provisioning against assets is a routine business activity. As such addition Rs. 97,902 may please be deleted. 6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in passing the impugned rectification order under section 154 of the Act, beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act.As per section 154(7) of the Act, no rectification order can be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of financial year in which the original order was passed. The rectification order dated August 22, 2024 has been passed beyond the limitation period and is therefore bad in law, and liable to be quashed. 7) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the additional evidence filled by the

Page 2 of 5

ITA No.5117/Del/2025

Assessee during appellate proceedings, despite such evidence being crucial for a just and fair adjudication of the appeal. Principal of Natural Justice: 8) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated06.12.2019 (served on 09.12.2019) prematurely, even though the limitation date for completion of assessment was 31.12.2019, and without duly considering the detailed responses filed by the Assessee on multiple occasions (viz. 23.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 25.11.2019, 29.11.2019, 04.12.2019 and 05.12.2019), thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 9) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the additional evidence filled by the Assessee during appellate proceedings, despite such evidence being crucial for a just and fair adjudication of the appeal. 3. At the outset, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee does not deserves any relief since it has not been complying statutory notices issued by lower authorities. Reference was invited to para-7 of the assessment order where the AO recorded assessee’s non-compliance. It was submitted that the assessee’s misconduct of non-compliance continued before the Ld. CIT(A) as well. Reference was invited to pages 25 to 27 of the appellate order indicating non- compliance during appellate proceedings. It was accordingly requested that the appeal be dismissed.

Page 3 of 5

ITA No.5117/Del/2025

The ld. Counsel however submitted that due compliance would now be made and that a last opportunity be given to present the evidences and defend its case.

Page 4 of 5

ITA No.5117/Del/2025

within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The appellant shall file a copy of the same before the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MAHAVIR SINGH] [AMITABH SHUKLA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .14.05.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 5 of 5