TRISHLA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), KARNAL, HARYANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 6099/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 TRISHLA BUILDTECH Vs. DCIT, CC, KARNAL PRIVATE LIMITED, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, #80, POCKET E-15, SECTOR- SECTOR-12, PART-2, 8, KARNAL, ROHINI, DELHI-110 085 HARYANA-132001 PAN No. AADCT8691C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by CA, Dhruv Goel Respondent by Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR.

Date of hearing: 01/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24/06/2026

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-3), Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A))”] vide order dated 24-7-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 arising out the assessment order dated 30-3-2022 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.That the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,42,18,350/- u/s. 69C on account of unexplained cash expenditure. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of AO of relying upon statement of 3rd parties recorded during survey u/s. 133A without providing opportunity of cross examination of such parties. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of completing the assessment without providing documents requested by assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of completing the assessment without providing draft order or opportunity of personal hearing. 5. That assessee craves leave to add / amend/ alter/ revise the above grounds of appeal during pendency of the appeal. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) Gurgaon has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of AO of reopening the assessment u/s. 148. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 30.9.2015 and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 21.12.2018. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 27.3.2021, after 4 years from assessment year. Thereafter, a survey was conducted at the business premises of Adarsh Super Construction Private Limited on 3.10.2019 by Investigation Wing and during this it was claimed that computer data was imaged from this excel sheet was retrieved on 17.12.2019. Investigation Wing passed this information to AO who had reopened the assessment u/s. 148 after conducting enquiry u/s. 133(6) dated 5.2.2021. AO made the addition on account of unaccounted cash payments made which is based on sufficient incriminating evidence in the form of meticulously maintained excel sheets impounded form the computer during the survey action, duly analysed and

confronted by the AO to both the assessee and the contractor but failed to get any credible explanation. Hence, the addition of Rs. 1,42,18,350/- u/s. 69C was made by the AO. Against the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 24-7-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the reopening of the assessment is bad because no notice u/s. 133(6) was issued for AY 2015-16. However, the notice u/s. 133(6) was issued for AY 2013-14 and similarly notice to Adarsh Super Construction Pvt Ltd. was also issued for AY 2013-14. He submitted that as no notice for AY 2015-16 was issued as such there is no justification on recording a finding that assessee has not replied to the notice dated 5.2.2021. He further submitted that the AO while disposing the objections dated 24.1.2022 has replied in response to Question No. 2 has admitted that the enquiry letter was issued inadvertently for AY 2013-14 instead of AY 2015-16 and in fact no enquiry was conducted by the AO for the year and AO has simply relied upon the conclusions of Investigation Wing without applying his own mind as such the reasons which were guided by the fact that assesse has not replied to enquiry notice which in fact was not issued and admitted by AO herself as such reopening is bad, hence, the same may be quashed as such. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that Assessee is in the business of real estate and filed ITR u/s. 139(1) on 30.9.2015 and the case was assessed u/s. 143(3) and returned income was accepted vide order dated 21.12.2018. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.3.2021. As per the reasons for reopening dated 5.3.2021, it was mentioned that survey u/s. 133A was conducted on Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. during which computer data was impounded. From such data, certain excel sheets were

extracted which allegedly contained record of cash payments made by assessee to Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. in connection with construction at its real estate project. It was mentioned that statement of Amardeep Sandhu, Director of Adarsh was recorded u/s. 131 where he allegedly stated that the sheets contained details of payments received from Trishla Builders of Trishla Group. We note that AO recorded in para 2 that bank statement of Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. were verified by him and it was found that all bank entries in impounded sheets related to assessee. As per AO, this validated that the cash payment of Rs. 2,26,77,300/- in the same sheets were also made by assessee. AO further recorded in para 5 of reasons that assessee and Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. were issued notices u/s 133(6) prior to issuance of notice u/s. 148 however, both did not comply. As per AO this justified the action reopening the assessment u/s. 148. Assessee filed the objections to the reopening since the reasons were factually wrong and submitted that since no notice u/s. 133(6) was issued for AY 2015-16; notice u/s. 133(6) was issued for AY 2013-14 and same was replied on 8.2.2021; similarly notice to Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. was issued for AY 2013-14; bank payments in the sheet did not reconcile with assessee’s books and the Director of Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. did not mention the name of the assessee in his statement but mentioned “Trishla Builders” which is a different entity. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the reasons for reopening were without application of mind and based on borrowed satisfaction. He further submitted that the objections were disposed by AP on 24.1.2022 and in para (k) on page no. 62 and para 2 on page 65, AO admitted that in fact no letter was issued by him to assessee or Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. and tried to cover up by mentioning this is a typing mistake. Further, entirety of reasons recorded by AO were based on information from Investigation Wing regarding cash payments by assessee. However, before reopening assessment, AO has not applied his mind to such information. This is

evident from the fact that neither the bank statements of Adarsh Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. or assessee were examined nor any enquiry made for AY 2015-16. Thus, such non-application of mind and non-verification by AO makes reassessment action bad in law as there was no live link of material with reasons recorded by AO. Hence, AO has erred by reopening assessment u/s. 148 based on incorrect facts and without independent enquiry, therefore, the notice u/s. 148 as well as its consequent reassessment is bad in law and thus the same is liable to be quashed. It is settled law that where the reasons were found to be partially correct or true, the reassessment was quashed as the Court observed that it would not be possible to say with certainty as to which factor would have weighed with the officer concerned and once it is shown that an irrelevant fact has been taken into consideration, to what extent the decision is vitiated would be difficult to say. In view of above, we quash the notice u/s. 148 and its consequent reassessment accordingly. Since we have quashed the notice as well as reassessment, the other grounds have become academic and thus need not be adjudicated. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 24.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR BHATNAGGAR

Date: 24.06.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI