M/S RAMA KRISHNA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-26, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1466/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2023-24) M/s. Rama Krishna Jewellers Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-26 D-34(B), Main road, Delhi Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi – 110 024 PAN No. AAGCA 6970 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Shivansh Bansal, C.A. Revenue by Ms. Kranti – CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 12.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 12.05.2026

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)-29, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 13.01.2026 arising from the assessment order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24.

ITA No. 1466/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Rama Krishna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is bad in law, without jurisdiction, contrary to the facts on record and settled legal principles, and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.17,85,22,563/- made on the basis of uncorroborated and inadmissible documents allegedly pertaining to FY 2023-24, by extrapolating the same to FY 2022-23, which is unsustainable in law and thus liable to be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of the Ld. AO in completing the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act without fulfilling the mandatory jurisdictional requirements, including the absence of valid material and proper sanction, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the impugned addition solely on the basis of an unverified statement of a third person which was in turn based on a purported list allegedly provided by another person, without independent verification and without affording the Appellant an opportunity of cross-examination, thereby violating the principles of natural justice; the addition so sustained is untenable and liable to be deleted. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining additions, made using estimation method, on the declared sales by borrowing the method from uncorroborated documents relating to another year rendering the addition arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred on facts as well as in law, has made notional additions without rejecting the books of accounts of the Appellant, and no defect in the books of accounts whatsoever was pointed out while passing the impugned assessment order. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, vary or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal.” Page 2 of 5

ITA No. 1466/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Rama Krishna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in the business of Jewellery. Assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 11.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 23,76,30,310/- for the A.Y 2023-24. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted and pursuant to that case was selected for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved, assessee is 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 the CIT(A) should have given reasonable opportunities to the assessee to represent the case and therefore, we are of the view that the issues

Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 1466/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Rama Krishna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT involved in 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. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 19.05.2026 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 4 of 5