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

ITA 3426/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Himalaya Realestate Private Limited, which appealed against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), challenging the addition of Rs. 31,13,121 as unsubstantiated advances received from customers under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the addition was unjustified as they had provided PAN details of over 700 parties, with only four parties' details pending, and claimed that the addition amounted to double jeopardy as the income was already disclosed under the POCM method. The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, decided to set aside the previous orders and remand the case back to the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779534 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANSHU GOEL; ADITYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3426/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Himalaya Realestate Private Limited, 7365, Shakti Nagar, Delhi – 1100 07 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(2), Delhi PIN: 1100 02 PAN :AACCH6225K (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 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 Appellant by Shri Pranshu Goel, CA & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 15.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3426/Del.2024 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. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3426/Del.2024 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 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3426/Del.2024 PAN of over 700 parties, all of which were accepted by the Ld. AO without any adverse finding. The appellant had failed to furnish the PAN of only four parties out of the 700 parties. The appellant/assessee wants to adduce additional evidence to allow application for admitting additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Rules. 7. In view of above material facts, especially prayer for submitting additional evidence ‘Annexures A to F’, accompanying application under Rule 29 in interest of justice, it is considered expedient to set aside orders of both the authorities below and the matter restore to the file of Ld. AO for fresh decision afresh in accordance with law preferably within 90 days of receipt of order after affording fair opportunity to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15th October, 2025. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "