HILLVIEW MARKETING PVT LTD ,OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA V. PCIT, CENTRAL DELHI-3, JHANDEWALLAN EXTENSION

ITA 1321/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the ld. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi, which had revised the reassessment order concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue was the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer to inquire into the source of share capital received from RCI World Trade Link DMCC, UAE, which was considered unaccounted income. The Tribunal examined whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, focusing on the adequacy of the inquiries made by the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838341 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (1975) 99 ITR 375, Universal Products P. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 2056/Del/2013, CIT v. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537, Apna Punjab Resorts Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 107 ITR 11 (Trib) (Chd), Idea Cellular Ltd. V. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYEN SETHI
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Fair market value; Income from undisclosed sources; Valuation report; Source of fund; Assessment record; Bogus Share capital; Revision of order; Prejudicial to interest; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1321/Del/2024 (Assessment Year:2016-17) Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Z-45/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Okhla, Delhi – 110020 Vs. PCIT, Central Delhi – 3 Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110055 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAACH3314B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, CA Sh. A.T. Panda, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.01.2024 of the Ld. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. Revisionary Authority exercising powers u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) arising out of the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, CC-31 for AY: 2016-17. 2. Heard and perused the records. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in liquor. It is a part of NV Group. The return of the assessee for AY: 2016-17, after adjusting final loss was filed on 12.10.2016 declaring nil income. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued without any adjustments. On 30.03.2021 reassessment was reopened for the reason that share capital of Rs.36.06 crores received from HCI WTL, UAE was alleged to be unaccounted income of the assessee. As a matter of fact, during the relevant previous year assessee received share capital of Rs.36.06 crores including share premium from M/s RCI World Trade Link DMCC a company incorporated in UAE on 20.03.2015 and its subsidiaries M/s RCI Industries and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The share capital was received through Vijaya Bank, New Delhi in terms of automatic route of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI Scheme) of Government of India. The reasons for reopening mentioned in Financial Year 2011-12 NV Group had received share capital from RCI & T (holding company) and the same was Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) offered to tax before Settlement Commission and thus, it was believed that the capital received by the assessee from RCI WTL, UAE a subsidiary of RCI & T was also unaccounted income. The assessment was completed on 30.03.2022 without any addition in respect of this disputed share capital. 3. Notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 20.09.2023 by revisionary authority interalia alleging that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings has concluded the assessment without making inquiries that should have been made and the addition of share capital received from RCI WTL, UAE was not made. Accordingly, the reassessment order dated 30.03.202 was held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. revisionary authority in para 5.2 & 5.3 has observed that following inquiries should have been made by the Assessing Officer: (a) Source & genuineness of investment by RCI WTL, UAE in share capital of the Appellant, for RCI WTL, UAE did not have funds to make investment of Rs.36.06 Cr. (b) Valuation of shares of the Appellant as per DCF method at Rs.449.20 per share as on 31.3.2015 was not verified. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) (c) Details of enterprise value of the Appellant, basis which the investment was made by RCI WTL, UAE was not called for. (d) Involvement of holding company of RCI WTL, UAE and Mr. Akash Khandelwal, an accommodation entry provider was not examined. (e) Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 was applicable, for enquiries that should have made were not made.” 4. Ld. Counsel has primarily relied the notice issued during reassessment proceeding available at page 41 – 43 to the paper book and the reply to the show cause notice available at page 44-47 of the paper book to submit that all the relevant queries raised were responded with evidences and there is no reason to assert by revisionary authority that due to failure of Assessing Officer to make inquiries the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 was erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 of the Act. It was submitted that the primary reason of the impugned order is that RCI WTL, UAE did not have its own fund to make investment in the shares of the assessee which was incorrect and was established from the financial statement and auditor’s report. It was submitted that purpose of proceedings under section 263 of the Act is not to substitute the view of Assessing Officer and when the pre- Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) assessment was completed concept of source of source was not applicable so as to alleged that there was failure to examine source of source of the investor. 5. On the contrary, ld. DR has heavily relied the impugned order taking the Bench across various findings of ld. revisionary authority to contend that revisionary authority has pointed out how the submissions of the assessee in reassessment proceeding if, were examined at all would have led to a different conclusion and as the impugned assessment order is too short and cryptic with regard to issue required to be examined in the reassessment proceedings of submissions of the assessee the impugned reassessment order has been rightly held to be without inquiry and the ground rightly held to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. We have given our thoughtful indulgence to the material cited and submissions and what strikes us foremost is the manner in which ld. Revisionary authority has narrated the facts surrounding transaction and thus drawing assumption that the transaction was tainted but ld. AO has not conducted necessary enquiry. The ld. Revisionary authority has repeatedly observed about the failure of Assessing Officer to make inquiries in respect Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) of the source of funds from the investor companies and that no inquiry was made with regard to genuineness and creditworthiness of share applicants and lenders of M/s RCI World Trade Link DMCC. Thus based on same in para 5.2 of its order the Ld. Revisional Authority points out as to what inquiries or verification should have been made and for convenience we reproduce para 5.2 of the impugned order. “5.2 In view of the facts discussed in preceding paras, the order dated 30.03.2023 u/s 147/143(3) of the DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi was passed without making following inquiries or verification which should have been made: i. The source of the fund utilized for making investment in the shares of the assessee company was not verified as M/s RCI WTC does not have own fund to make investment to the extent of Rs. 36.06 crore. ii. The genuineness & creditworthiness of share applicants & lenders of M/s RCI World Trade Link DMCC was not verified during the assessment proceedings. iii The information on the basis of which the merchant banker calculated the Enterprise Value was not called for. iv. The valuation of the shares of the assessee company as per DCF method by the merchant banker at Rs.449.20 per share as on 31.03.2015 remained unverified. v. The involvement of holding company of M/s RCI WTL & Sh. Aakash Khandelwal, an accommodation entry provider was not verified during the assessment proceedings.” 7. However, at page No. 41 to 43 of the paper book assessee has provided the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 21.12.2021 and the reply to the same being submitted at the time of reassessment proceedings. The annexure to the notice u/s 142(1) when considered it raises pertinent queries with Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) regard to questioning the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the transaction with M/s RCI World Trade Link DMCC. There is specific query to provide the computation of fair market value of the share of company on the date of issue of shares RCI World Trade Link DMCC. 7.1 We find that at page No. 44 to 47 the copy of reply is provided and for convenience we reproduced the reply herein below: “The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-31, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 Sub: Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.ws 148 of the IT Act in the case of MisHillview Marketing Pvt Ltd for AY 2016-17. Sir, With regard to the above, this has reference to your notice dt.21.12.2021 issued in the case of the captioned assessee u/s 142 of the IT Act' 1961 wherein the assessee company has been asked to furnish certain details/information/documents as per the annexure annexed thereto. In connection to the same, on behalf of and under instructions from our subject client, the point wise reply is being submitted as under: 1. Reply to Point No.1 The company was incorporated on 4th July '1995 under the Companies Act 1956 with the main objects of trading in goods. At present company is acting as franchise of Liquor companies for selling of their products in Delhi. 2. Reply to Point No.2 The copy of computation of income of the assessee company along with the copy of Balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account with notes, cash flow statement, Form- 3CD, Form-26AS for AY 16-17 are enclosed at page No.1 to 40 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) 3. Reply to Point No.3 The company was not having any foreign bank account during the year under consideration. The copy of ledger account of Share application money received from RCI World Trade Link DMCC in the books of the assessee company along with the copy of bank statement of Vijaya Bank highlighting therein the amounts received by the assessee company form RCI World Trade Link DMCC is enclosed at Page No. 133to 138 4 Reply to Point No. 4, 5 & 6 wherein it has been mentioned that kindly provide PAN, email and address of RCI World Trade Link DMCC and kindly establish identity of RCI World Trade Link DMCC. In this regard it may be submitted that the company i.e. M/s RCI World Trade LinkDMCC is registered in United Arab Emirates under the Trading Licence issued by the Government of Dubai. The copy of Trading licence and certificate of registration issued by the Government of Dubai is enclosed at page No. 41 to 51. 5. Reply to Point No. 7 wherein it has been mentioned that kindly establishes creditworthiness of RCI World Trade Link DMCC with respect to share capital /share premium introduction in the company during the relevant year and genuineness of investment made by RCI World Trade Link DMCC during the relevant assessment year. In this regard, it may be submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee company had received share application money amounting to Rs.36,06,40,000/- from M/s RCI World Trade Link DMCC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates through the automatic route of FDI scheme of Government of India. The copy of Trading Licence and Certificate of registration issued by the Government of Dubai are enclosed at page No.41 to 51 to establish the identity of RCI World Trade Link DMCC. Further to establish the creditworthiness of RCI World Trade Link DMCC, the assessee company is hereby enclosing the audited balance sheet of RCI World Trade Link DMCC for the year ended 31st December' 2015 on the basis of which creditworthiness of the investor company can be verified. From the perusal of the balance sheet of RCI World Trade Link DMCC it is evident that the company had sufficient available funds to make the investment in the assessee company by way of own funds and unsecured loans raised by RCI World Trade Link DMCC during the year ended as on 31.03.2015 copy of balance sheet of RCI World Trade Link DMCC enclosed at pg. 119-132. Moreover as regard, genuineness of investment by RCI World Trade Link, DMCC in the form of share capital is concerned, it may be submitted that the investment has been made through automatic route of FDI approved by the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 9 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) Government of India. The amount has been received through designated bank account in Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road Branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The copy of foreign inward remittance certificate( FIRC) issued by the Vijaya Bank on account of remittances made by RCI World Trade Link DMCC towards investment in the assessee company are enclosed herewith at Page No. 96 to Lo,to verify the genuineness of the amounts received from the investor i.e RCI World Trade Link DMCC. Further after having received the FDI, the assessee had duly filed all the report in the Form FC-GPR regarding receipt of amount towards consideration for the issue of equity shares in the assessee company through the bank (Vijaya Bank) in which funds have been received from RCI World Trade Link DMCC to the Reserve bank of India. The same are enclosed herewith to further establish the genuineness of the share capital received by the assessee company as under: 1. Intimation for allotment of equity shares in favour of M/s RCI World Trade LinkDIMCC filed by the assessee company to Vijaya Bank,pg-80. 2. Copy of Form-FC-GPR. pg. 81 – 85 3. Copy of declaration by the Company Secretary regarding the allotment of shares to the investor company and all the requirement of the companies Act' 1956 & 2013and Government of India have been complied with. Pg. - 86 4. Valuation report from the SEBI Registered Merchant Banker. 87 – 93 5. Copy of RBI letter dt. 12.01.2018 informing to the assessee company regarding allotment of registration Number of investment received by the assessee company from foreign investor RCI World Trade Link DMCC. Pg.- 59 6. The annual return of Foreign Liabilities and assets filed by the assessee company as on 31.03.2016, 31.03.2017 & 31.03.2018. pg - 52-79 Therefore, in view of the above identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital received by the by the assessee company from RCI World Trade Link DMCC stands established and therefore no negative inference may be warranted. 6. Reply to Point No. 8 The details of share capital /share premium introduced by RCI World Trade LinkDMCC in the assessee company in the format given in the notice are furnished as under: No. of shares purchased by the RCI World Trade Link DMCC Price per share Face value per share Premium Value per share FMV per share on the date of issue of share (In Rs.) 8,00,000 450,80 10 440.80 449.20 (As per Valuation report dt. 07.07.2015 given by Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 10 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) SEBI Approved Valuer M/s First Overseas Capital Limited 7. Reply to Point No.9 The copy of valuation report issued by the SEBI Approved Valuer i.e. First Overseas Capital Ltd for computing the fair market value of the share of the assessee company on the date of issue of shares to RCI World Trader Link DMCC is enclosed at Page No.87 to 93.” 8. Thus, observations of ld. Revisional Authority about failure of Assessing Officer to conduct inquiries is certainly factually incorrect and erroneous. The inquiries raised by AO sufficiently covered those aspects which ld. Revisionary has found to be not enquired, as reproduced above from para 5.2 of the impugned order.Then there is nothing which shows that from assessment records, ld. Revisionary authority was able to find anything from reply of the assesse, that there was any deficiency or discrepancy in the reply or the evidences filed by the assesse which necessitated and warranted some further enquiry in ordinary course of assessment. 8.1 The elaborate reply of the assessee is not shown to be in any form deficient of necessary details or that any of the details or evidences furnished by the assessee were factually incorrect thereby giving rise any possibility that Assessing Officer’s indulgence on the issue involved in reopening lacked a prudent approach to hold the assessment as erroneous so far as prejudicial Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 11 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) to the interest of revenue.There is nothing in impugned order that AO has proceeded on an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law to hold the order being erroneous.The AO has made enquiries and after applying his own judgment about the inquiries to be carried out, accepted the returned income. The record is speaking about the inquiries showing that very apt and relevant queries were raised. In such a situation, if ld. Revisionary authority feels that a particular inquiry should have been carried out in a particular manner which has not been done or the AO should have taken particular view about a particular income and on such ground of failure of inquiry, action for revision is invoked then for such situations, the Hon’bleBombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. ( 203 ITR 108) has held that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If AO acting in accordance with law makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous simply because according to ld. Revisionary authority the some more enquiry could have been done. 8.2 There is a fine though subtle distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. It is only incases of “lack of inquiry” that revisional Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 12 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) powers u/s 263 can be exercised. Further,while lack of enquiry by the AO may render the assessment order “erroneous” it is notnecessarily “prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. The PCIT must deal with the submissions of the assessee and give reasons as to how the order is erroneous andprejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 8.3 A bare assertion or another plausible mode of enquiry is not sufficient and Section 263 of the Act proceedings cannot be initiated with a view to starting fishing and roving inquiries for reaching a particular conclusion. Like in present case ld. Revisionary authority has proceeded on an assumption that transaction was certainly tainted and AO should have become persecutor to reach that conclusion. 9. Certainly the assessment order is not elaborative and lacks details of queries raised and response and as to how the conclusion was drawn to find no reason to suspect the transaction. However, the law in this regard is somehow to the benefit of assesse as the assessment order here in case before us cannot be said to be cryptic.A co-ordinate bench, on which one of us, Judicial Member, was also in quorum, has considered this aspect and in ITA 397/Del/2021 Sandeep Hooda versus Pr.CIT-7 has held as follows; Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 13 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) “11.1 Merely because the assessment order is silent on that aspect that cannot be a ground for invoking powers u/s 263. Clear distinction between inadequate inquiry and lack of inquiry has been examined by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-1, (1975) 99 ITR 375, where Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:- \"The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. 'The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income- tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. The meaning to be given to the word \"erroneous'' in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the Income- tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word \"erroneous\" in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 14 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.\" 11.2 Further in Universal Products P. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 2056/Del/2013 relied the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Judgment In CIT v. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 where it has held that : \"This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, that would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for interference and revision.\" 11.3 Hon’ble Bombay High court in Income Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2013 (CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom)) decided on February 3, 2015, following its earlier decision in Idea Cellular Ltd. V. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) has taken a similar view that : \". . . if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it.\" 10. Then it can be appreciated from the impugned order that as the share capital money received was NV group from M/s RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd. was offered by the group as bogus share capital before the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 15 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) Income Tax Settlement Commission and the assessee company relates to NV group so the ld. Revisional authority considered necessity of examining source of investing companies.The suspicion has arisen due to fact that the investor RCI World Trade Link was incorporated only on 20.03.2015 and had made the investments in the financial year to its incorporation. Thus it appears thatld. Revisional Authority was moved more by instinct to question the AO’s failure to have not examined the source of source of the investor which revisional authorities considered was needed to be examined in the present facts and circumstances. 11. However, what is relevant is that Assessing Officer was alive to the entire issue and the balance sheet of RCI World Trade Link was before Assessing Officer on the basis of which genuineness and creditworthiness of RCI World Trade Link stood accepted. Then any action or proceedings arising out of such proceedings in 2011 from search or surrender in settlement are not relevant to the present assessment year. Merely because assessee relates to NV Group that alone cannot be basis to impute an error in the judgment of Assessing Officer by holding that any inquiry was lacking. 12. We are of considered view that mere suspicion of ld. Revisionary Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 16 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) authority about source of investor company cannot be conclusive to hold that ld. AO should have entered into this enquiry to, as assesse was not supposed to establish the source of source. Factually speaking at page no. 179 as part of financials of RCI World Trade Link DMCC there is description of unsecured loan account which shows that during the financial year ending on 31/12/2015 there was no unsecured loan from RCI Ind. & Tech. Ltd. and loans from five different companies to extent of AED14,390,688/ were received. There is no assertion in the impugned order that any of these companies giving unsecured loans to RCI World Trade Link DMCC, were related to Akash Khandelwal, the alleged entry operator. To allege that enquiry in source of source would have resulted in a different consequence to make the credibility and creditworthiness of investor company, RCI World Trade Link DMCC, to be suspicious and resultantly to hold the lack of enquiry has resulted in passing an order which is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 11. Then it was with regard to the valuation of shares the ld. Revisional Authority seems to have questioned the AO’s action of accepting the same butlegally speaking the Assessing Officer had not much scope to interfere in Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 17 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) the valuation provided by merchant banker.The valuation, if conducted by a qualified merchant banker using the DCF method as per Rule11UA(2), is generally accepted. In Apna Punjab Resorts Ltd. v.PCIT (2023)107 ITR 11 (Trib) (Chd) (Trib) it has been held that while exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act, AOs acceptance of DCF method, cannot be interfered to hold the order to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to revenue. 12. Consequently we are of considered view that in the given facts and circumstances the grounds on which ld. Revisionary authority has held impugned assessment order to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to interest of revenue cannot be sustained. The grounds deserve to be sustained. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and impugned order of ld. Revisionary authority is quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2026 Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 20.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 18 ITA No.1321/Del/2024 Hill View Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "