LANDMARK EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5910/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member), MS RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing reasons or adjudicating the merits of the disallowance under Section 43B. With no objection from the learned DR, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's original return for A.Y. 2020-21 was re-opened under Section 148 following a search action and centralization of the case. The assessment was completed with additions, leading to an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) granted partial relief but dismissed a ground concerning an *suo moto* disallowance of Rs. 7,66,605/- made by the assessee under Section 43B, without adjudicating the merits of the claim that it was an inadvertent disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal related to an *suo moto* disallowance under Section 43B of Rs. 7,66,605/- without adjudicating the merits of the assessee's claim that it was inadvertently made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 132,Section 148,Section 147,Section 143,Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & MS RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16/12/2025Pronounced: 23/12/2025
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 22.07.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 24, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)") under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is erroneous and has been passed without proper appreciation of facts.

2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving relief of Rs. 7,66,605/- to the Appellant on account of Landmark Exim Pvt. Ltd disallowance inadvertently made under section 43B of the Act because it is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the above grounds.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the company filed its original return for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.02.2021, declaring income of Rs. 41,51,840/-. Consequent upon a search action conducted u/s 132 of the Act in the case of M/s Saluja Construction Company Limited and others including the assessee on 09.06.2022, the case of the assessee was centralized. The assessment for A.Y. 2020-21 was re-opened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 13.01.2023. In response the assessee filed its return on 28.02.2024, declaring an income of Rs. 41,51,840/-. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 of the Act, vide order dated 22.03.2024., at an income of Rs. 43,81,822/- after making several additions.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 22.07.2025, Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee. Specifically the ground related to disallowance of Rs. 7,66,605/- inadvertently disallowed u/s 43B of the Act by the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein the sold substantive issue relates to disallowance of Rs. 7,66,605/- u/s 43B of the Act.

4.

Brief facts related to the issue are that the assessee had suo moto made disallowance u/s 43B of the Act on account of TDS payable at the end of the year under consideration even though this disallowance was not required to be made. Before the Ld. AO, the assessee submitted these facts through a letter, however, the same was not considered by the Ld. AO. During appeal, Ld. CIT(A) while noting the assessee submissions simply dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits.

5.

Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) without giving any reason for not accepting the assessee’s claim. He has further requested that the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for passing a speaking order on the merits of the issue. Ld. DR has also not objected to the above said proposition.

6.

In view of above stated facts and circumstances and in the interest of the justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23 /12/2025.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →