ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PEARLS BUILDWELL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above captioned two separate appeals by the Revenue are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 31, New Delhi dated 28.09.2016 pertaining to A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 respectively.

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the expenditure (i.e. Rs 3,78,58,892/-) treating them as unascertained trade liabilities without giving any opportunity to the AO for verifying the submissions filed by AR which he has not submitted before AO. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of Administrative & Employee expenses (i.e. Rs 62,57,170/-) to 10% in absence of any bills and vouchers, when assessee has not produced them to enable the AO to point out defects. 3. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal

are without prejudice to each other.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 20.6.2013 in M/s PACL Group of cases. The case of the assessee was also covered u/s 132(1) of the Act as the assessee is one of the contractor/land developers for the projects of M/s PACL Ltd.

Page 2 of 6 and 6089/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2012-13 & 2014-15] ACIT Vs. Pearl Buildwell Infrastructure the assessee filed a return of Rs nil. Subsequently, the AO passed order u/s 153A adding an amount of Rs 4,46,53,043/- in AY 2012-13 and Rs 1,17,27,147/- for AY 2014-15, appearing in the balance sheet on account of bogus liability as no documents were filed to substantiate the liability. The AO further added 25% of expense towards administrative and employees amounting to Rs 62,57,170/- in AY 2012-13 and Rs 91,70,830/- for AY 2014-15, on account of the fact that the same had no supporting documents.

Aggrieved the Revenue is before us.

7. At the very outset, the ld. DR pointed out that additional evidences were admitted by the ld. CIT(A) without confronting the same to the AO and without getting a report from the Assessing Officer. The ld AR however relied on the CIT(A).

6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that in both the AYs 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) has given part relief on account of bogus liabilities on the basis of submissions and evidence filed by the assessee before him. We are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) should have confronted the materials filed before him to the AO for his comments before adjudicating the issue. In view of the same, we are of the view that in Page 3 of 6 and 6089/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2012-13 & 2014-15] ACIT Vs. Pearl Buildwell Infrastructure the interest of justice and balance of convenience, the issue, for both the assessment years, should be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for examining the issue judiciously. We therefore, consider it fit to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) for both the assessment years and direct the ld. CIT(A) to give a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and examine and adjudicate on the impugned issue afresh after calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer on account of additional evidences. The assessee is also directed to furnish all documents /evidence as and when required by the ld. CIT(A) for examination. In view of the same, ground 1 for both the assessment years, is allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground no 2 is dismissed.

Page 4 of 6 and 6089/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2012-13 & 2014-15] ACIT Vs. Pearl Buildwell Infrastructure

The order is pronounced in the open court on 21.01.2026.