FORESIGHT VANTAJE PRIVATE LIMITED FORMERLY VICTORY INFRAEDGE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX 25 (1), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1299/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19)

Foresight Vantaje Private DCIT, Limited (Formerly Victory Circle-25(1), Infraedge Private Limited) v. C R Building, I P Estate G-80, Mansrovar Garden New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110015 PAN-AABCT9057C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajeshwar Painuly , CA Department by Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

This appeal in ITA No. 1299/Del/2026 for assessment year: 2018-19 has arisen from the appellate order dated 05.12.2025 passed by ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961(in Short “Act”) in DIN No: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1083361402(1), which appeal in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act(DIN:ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1051501740(1). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income originally u/s 139 for the impugned assessment year. The assessee is engaged in the business of developing , construction and marketing of commercial real estate project in Gurgaon. During the year no revenue from operation was declared , and only income

2 ITA No.1299/Del/2026 Foresight Vantage Private Limited

from other sources is credited in P&L A/c. The information on record showed that the assessee has TDS on interest income deducted u/s 194A and sale consideration on sale of immovable property (Section 194IA) , aggregating to Rs. 9,45,18,407/- Thus, as per AO, the assesssee had not filed return of income , and thus corresponding income has escaped assessment within purview of Section 147 . Proceedings were initiated by the AO for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148. The details of aforesaid proceedings are enumerated by the AO in assessment order. The assessee filed return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148, declaring income of Rs. 4,72,495/-. The assessee participated in reassessment proceedings, but filed part replies. The AO after detailed enquiry made addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- being amount credited in the books of accounts which was treated as unexplained credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) . During appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued as many as five notices to the assessee as are recorded in the ld. CIT(A) appellate order. The assessee did not submitted any response/reply before ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex- parte in the absence of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO with respect to the unexplained cash credits to the tune of Rs.6,00,00,000/- u/s 68, and appeal of the assessee stood dismissed by ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not participated in the appellate proceedings , and no supporting documents has been placed on record by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings to support its contentions. Thus, ld. CIT(A) declined to interfere with the assessment order passed by ld. AO, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Still aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte with respect to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits in the books of accounts to the tune of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act , and there is no independent reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits. It was submitted 2

3 ITA No.1299/Del/2026 Foresight Vantage Private Limited

that keeping in view provisions of section 250(6), the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. It was prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee, and it was stated that the assessee will comply with all the directions of ld. CIT(A) and submit details as are required by ld. CIT(A) in set aside adjudication proceedings. 4.2 Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not participated in the appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A). He relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have culled out brief facts and contentions of both the parties in the preceding para’s of this order and the same are not repeated. The short issue before us is with respect to the additions made by the AO and as sustained by ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- being unexplained cash credits in the books of accounts of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the 1961 Act. We have observed that during the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued as many as five notices to the assessee. The assessee did not submitted any response to aforesaid notices. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated appeal of the assessee ex-parte. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the aforesaid addition made by the AO u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition without making any independent enquiry, and we have observed that Ld. CIT(A) did not even call for the assessment records before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass appellate order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6), as ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 250(6), wherein ld. CIT(A) has to state point for determination, his decision and reasons thereof. The ld. CIT(A) did not called for the assessment records from the AO nor did made independent enquiries . Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 250(4).The appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is subject to further appeal with ITAT u/s 253. The appellate order passed by ITAT is subject to further appeal before Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A. The judgment 3

4 ITA No.1299/Del/2026 Foresight Vantage Private Limited

and order passed by Hon’ble High Court is also subject to challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not a final order, as it is subject to challenge before higher appellate authority. Thus, Reasons which weighed in the minds of the adjudicating authority while adjudicating appeal on merits of the issues are cardinal as the higher appellate authority can then adjudicate appeal on the issues arising in appeal before them, based on decision and reasoning of ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issues. If the ld. CIT(A) simply dismiss the appeal merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits , such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) , and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal as it will be an order passed without reasoning on the issues on merits . Thus, while adjudicating appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has to make independent application of mind to arrive at his own decision/conclusion. The appellate order of the CIT(A) is clearly in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and liable to be set aside. Merely stating the assessment order passed by AO is upheld and does not warrant interference is not sufficient, and that the assessee has not submitted details/documents during appellate proceedings is not sufficient. The ld. CIT(A) is not toothless as his powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO, which even includes power of enhancement. The proceedings before ld. CIT(A) are extension of assessment proceedings. It is equally true that the assessee also did not complied with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support his contentions, despite as many as five notices issued by ld. CIT(A). Thus, the assessee is equally responsible for its woes as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has made statement before the Bench that if one more opportunity is provided, the assessee will provide all details/documents/evidences to substantiate its stand. Keeping in view the entire factual matrix as culled out above in the preceding para’s of this order, it will be fair to both the parties as well in the interest of justice, that the appellate order passed by 4

5 ITA No.1299/Del/2026 Foresight Vantage Private Limited

ld. CIT(Appeals) be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties w.r.t. the issues arising in the appeal .The assessee is directed to comply with the notice issued by ld. CIT(Appeals) during the appellate proceedings in set aside remand proceedings, otherwise ld. CIT(A) shall be free to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits in accordance with law, after complying with provisions of Section 250(6). We clarify that we have not commented on merits of the issues. Thus, the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 25.06.2026

S Sd/-- -/- Sd/-- (VIMAL KUMAR) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.06.2026