ONE ONE APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KESHAV PURAM, NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 19(1), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 7790/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] One One Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, G-48, Ground floor, Lawrence Ward- 19(1), Road, Keshav Puram, Vs C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110035. Delhi-110002. PAN- AAHCR2869J Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Revenue by Shri Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 03.10.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 24.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.

ITA No.- 7790/Del/2025 One One Apparels Pvt. Ltd. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That in the absence of a valid notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act and the consequent framing of the assessment order by the Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1), in violation of CBDT Instruction No. [F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II] dated 23.06.2017, the invalid assumption of jurisdiction would render the impugned assessment bad in law. 2. That the addition of Rs. 93,92,000/-u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11U & 11UA of the Income Tax Rules made by the assessing officer on account of alleged excess consideration @ Rs. 46.96 per share received by the assessee is arbitrary, illegal and unjust. 3. That the Assessing Officer erred in law in making an addition of Rs. 22,000/- paid to ROC for increasing authorized share capital by treating the same as capital expenditure. 4. That the appellant denies its liability to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any ground during the course of the proceeding.”

(i) On account of unexplained cash deposited during demonetization period - 44,93,000/- (ii) Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) on account of excess consideration received on shares issued - 93,92,000/- (iii) Fee paid to ROC treated as capital expenditure - 22,000/-

ITA No.- 7790/Del/2025 One One Apparels Pvt. Ltd. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the same and deleted the addition on account of cash deposited during demonetization. Against the additions confirmed on account of addition u/s 56(2)(viib) and payment to ROC disallowed as capital expenditure, the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal.

Ground no. 2: Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) on account of excess consideration received on issue of shares (Rs. 93,92,000/-).

4.1 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the AO while computing the FMV has wrongly adopted the figures of total assets and liabilities at the beginning of the year whereas he should have taken the figures as on 31.03.2017 (i.e. before the issuance of shares) the FMV recomputed as per AO’s own method but by adopting the value

ITA No.- 7790/Del/2025 One One Apparels Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03.2017, works out to Rs. 155.31 per shares. Accordingly, Ld. AR has contended that the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted.

4.2 Ld. DR on the other hand, has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the date of allotment of these shares was 31.03.2017. Hence, while making valuation under Rule 11UA, the figure as on 31.03.2017 should have been taken instead of 31.03.2016 as adopted by the AO. We, accordingly, restore the matter to the AO for the limited purpose of re-computation of FMV by adopting the relevant figures of assets & liabilities as on 31.03.2017 and if the same worked out to Rs. 70 or more, then the addition under section 53(2)(viib) of the Act is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ground no. 3: Disallowance of Rs. 22,000/- on account of capital expenditure

ITA No.- 7790/Del/2025 One One Apparels Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find no infirmity in the action of the AO, considering the settled legal position in this regard. Hence, the disallowance of fee paid to ROC of Rs. 22,000/- on account of being capital expenditure is upheld. The assessee’s appeal on this ground is rejected.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29 .06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 29.06.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,