HIMALAYA REALESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,SHAKTI NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11(2), DELHI, CR BUILDING

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3426/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\nITA No. 3426/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\n\nHimalaya Realestate Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income\nLimited, 7365, Shakti Nagar,\nDelhi - 1100 07\nTax, Circle 11(2),\nDelhi\n\nPAN :AACCH6225K\n(Appellant)\n\nPIN: 1100 02\n(Respondent)\n\nAppellant by\nRespondent by\nShri Pranshu Goel, CA, Shri Aditya\nGupta, Adv.\nShri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\n184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was done to allow the assessee to submit additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee company declared an income of Rs.1,59,18,200/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.31,13,121/- on account of unsubstantiated advance received from customers. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unsubstantiated advances was justified, and whether the assessee should be allowed to submit additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CA & Shri Aditya
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 15.10.2025

ORDER

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 17.10.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Order dated 29.12.2019 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.1,59,18,200/- . The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2018. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 29.12.2019 made addition of Rs.31,13,121/- on account of unsubstantiated advance received from customers under Section 68 of the Act.

3.

Against order dated 29.12.2019 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2023.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following Grounds of Appeal:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal and void ab initio;

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition amounting to Rs. 31,13,121/- made by Ld. AO of the advances received under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act.

3. That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in rendering the assessment bad in law as the appellant had discharged its onus of proving the identity. genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and by the Ld. AO is against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play; 4.1. That the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law as the Ld. AO had not issued any show cause notice before making addition, which is in contravention of guidelines issued by CBDT Circular Instruction No. 20/2015 [F.No. 225/269/2015 ITA-II] dated 29.12.2015.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made by the Ld. AO as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), tantamount to double jeopardy, being income already disclosed under POCM method.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing the tax at the rate of 60% and surcharge thereof, on the addition amounting to Rs. 31,13,121/- made under Section 68 of the Act 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the Ld. AO as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), is non-speaking, laconic, devoid of any reasoning, without considering the submissions of the appellant; 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO in charging interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 9. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271AAC of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law.”

5.

Appellant/assessee through application dated 08.08.2023, prayed for admitting additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

6.

Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the additional documents “Annexures A to F” accompanying application for additional evidence, could not be placed during assessment and appellate proceedings before the departmental authorities. The appellant duly provided

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →