SPARSH VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.3400/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sparsh Vyapaar Private Vs. DCIT Limited, 135, Golf Links Central Circle – 32 New Delhi New Delhi PAN No.AAICS5566Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Amar Kumar, Advocate Sh. Pranav, Advocate Sh. Chintu Kumar, Advocate Sh. P.K. bansal, Advocate Respondent by Dr. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR

Date of hearing: 03/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi for the 2018-19. Grounds of appeal are as under :- 1 | P a g e

“1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and laws in upholding the assessment proceeding completed by the Ld. AO under Section 1530 r.ws. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") at an assessed income of Rs.7,61,94,516/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the Appellant. 2. That the Ld CIT (Appeals) has erred on laws in upholding the assessment proceedings completed by the Ld. AO against the Appellant Company, which has been struck off from the Register of Companies as per the MCA records and has not been reinstated by the NCLT, contrary to settled legal jurisprudence that assessment cannot be undertaken against a non-existent Assessee. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the additions of Rs.3,35,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO as unaccounted capital gain without appreciating that the essential ingredients contained therein are not satisfied in the instant case. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and law in confirming the assessment order dated 30/03/2023 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Ac by the Ld. AO, as the same is perverse, erroneous and bad in law for not being based on any "incriminating material and on the basis of "dumb documents" (diary notings) found during the search of Kuldeep Bishnoi Group against the Appellant, which is a condition sine qua non for imposing additions u/s 153C of the Act. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has grievously erred on facts and in law by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO, which was based on the statements of Late Sh. Sukumar Poria recorded u/s 132(4) on a stand-alone basis sans any corroborative evidence being brought forward by the Ld. AO and without there being any possibility for the Appellant to cross-examine Late Sh. Sukumar Poria due to his sad demise. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO, as the Ld. AO falled to discharge its burden of proof as statutorily mandated under the Act, and in the absence of any corroborative and cogent materials/investigation, any 2 | P a g e

additions made are arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 7. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law by confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO by holding that the Ld. AO rightly rejected the retraction of the statement made by Sh. Kuldeep Bishnoi stating that the diary notings and statements of Late Sh. Sukumar Poria are false and cannot be relied on, without giving any cogent reasoning for such rejection contrary to settled law. 8. That based on facts and in law, the Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by Section 271D and Section 270A of the Act by the Ld. AO are correct. 9. That the aforementioned grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 10. The Appellant craves to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before, or at the time of, the hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.

3 | P a g e

return of income on 24.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs.4,2694,516/-. A Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17.05.2022. A detailed questionnaire dated 14.01.2022 along with notice u/s 142(1) was issued. In compliance to the above notice the assessee filed the required details vide letter dared 19.01.2022.

4 | P a g e

false and cannot be relied on, without giving any cogent reasoning for such rejection contrary to settled law. 8. That based on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming that the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271D and Section 270A of the Act by the Ld. AO are correct. 9. That the aforementioned grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 10. The Appellant craves to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before, at the time of, the hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law."

6 | P a g e

08/08/2018 as the Assessee's name remained struck off both at the time of the initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C as well as on the date of passing of the Impugned Assessment Order on 30/03/2023. 12. That the Impugned Assessment Order is vold-ab- initio and not sustainable in law, as the Assessee was non-existent in the eyes of the law because the Assessee's name has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar, and thus, the Return of Income filed for the relevant AY 2018-19 on 07/12/2018 is invalid law. 13. That the Impugned Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is invalid and contrary to the principles of natural justice because neither the copy of the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C nor the approval obtained u/s 153D was supplied to the Assessee, and even the inspection of the file relating to the assessment records in this regard was not allowed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 14. Without prejudice to the Ground No.13, that the approval u/s 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in this case has been granted by the specified authority in a mechanical manner and thus, the Impugned Assessment Order passed in pursuance thereto is bad in law and is vitiated. 15. That the Impugned Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is invalid, as it appears that no order u/s 127 of the Act centralising the jurisdiction of the Assessee has been passed because the Ld. Assessing Officer neither provided the copy of the said order nor allowed inspection of the file relating to the assessment records," Alternate Ground,

7 | P a g e

"That the Ld. Assessing Officer was not correct in law in making additions of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- during the aforesaid Assessment Year, as Late Shri Sukumar Poria admitted in his statement said that "he did not remember the time (of transaction)" and the Ld. Assessing Officer made the aforesaid additions in complete disregard of the above facts, and the same is not sustainable in law." 7. The Ld. AR contended that the additional grounds strike at the very foundation of the assessment proceedings and urged before us to admit the same in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCM Benetton India Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 173 Taxmann 283. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an application before the Hon'ble President, ITAT, Mumbai seeking constitution of special bench on the additional grounds raised by the Assessee related to mechanical approvals u/s 153D of the Act. The Assessee, therefore, filed an application before the Hon'ble President, ITAT, Mumbai, seeking withdrawal of the grounds relating to Section 153D approvals of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 15.05.2026.

8 | P a g e

9 | P a g e

16.12.2021, i.e. after 01.04.2021 the deemed date of search in the case of the assessee person other than the searched person shall be date of recording of satisfaction note i.e. 15.12.2021 in view of the decision of the of 'CIT vs. Jasjit Singh' reported in 458 ITR 437(SC), thus, assessment u/s.153C on or after 01.04.2021 is bad in law. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the CIT vs. Jasjit Singh read as under:- 9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision under section 153C was enacted. The revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153C(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the AO seized of the materials of the search party, under section 132-would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned AO. In that even if the date would virtually "relate back" as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is disproportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned under section 153C after a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice in writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at

10 | P a g e

least 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of section 153C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts."

Sd/- Sd/-

[MAHAVIR SINGH] [KRINWANT SAHAY] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.10.2026 Neha, Sr. PS

SHASHI Digitally signed by 11 | P a g e KANT SHASHI KANT PANDEY PANDE Date: 2026.10.26 Y 02:30:12 -07'00'