TIRUPATI REALBUILD PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 5405/DEL/2025

AI Insights

Tirupati Real Build Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The primary contention was the addition of Rs 44,50,000 as commission income, which the AO alleged was received and then repaid to group entities, based solely on suspicion without concrete evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal in the ITAT. The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and noted the lack of substantive documentary evidence from the AO. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a decision based on comprehensive evidence and proper legal procedure under the faceless regime as mandated by Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785801 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KINSHUK GAUTAM
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos. 5405 & 5406/Del/2025 Asstt. Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Tirupati Real Build Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Shop No. 120-221, FF, Om Shubham Faridabad Tower, NIT HO, Faridabad-121001 Haryana (PAN: AACCT8844) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kinshuk Gautam, CA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 ORDER These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the respective orders passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since identical grounds have been raised, except the difference in figures of addition, hence, both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts of the assessment year 2018-19, being lead case wherein, the following grounds have been raised:- 1) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as Ld AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs 44,50,000/-being commission @ 1% of Rs 44,50,00,000/- as the amount received and then repaid to group entities and is just based on suspicion, without providing any evidence to the assesse due to which the Assessment Order is bad in law, void-ab-initio and is liable to set aside in full. 2) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as Ld AO has erred in law and on facts of the case making addition of Rs 44,50,000/- just based on suspicion and wholly on the whims and wishes of the Ld AO, without placing any concrete evidence on record. 3) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as Ld AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition without considering the submissions and evidences placed on record, and without rebutting the same. Nothing adverse has been brought on record. Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e 4) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as Ld AO has erred in law and on facts of the case by framing assessment without on the basis of order passed u/s 148A(d) and Notice issued u/s 148 by Local Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is in contravention to Sec 144B because as per Sec 144B whole of the process of assessment should be under Faceless regime. 5) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as Ld AO has erred in law and on facts of the case by framing assessment, as the approval u/s 148B is mechanical in nature, without application of mind and is just an eye wash of the enacted statutory provisions 6) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld AO as the Assessment order of the Ld Assessing Officer is bad in law and facts as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant due to lack & violation of principles of natural justice. 7) That the Appellant prays for the grant of permission to add, alter, delete, modify, any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time on or before or during the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available, it was found that the funds of AVPS trust (Aggarwal Vidya Pracharini Sabha is a trust controlled and managed by Dev Wine Group and Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta is the Chairman of the Trust) are credited in the assessee’s bank to accounts of Pivotol Infrastructure Private Limited, Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta, Balaji Sales, Dev Wine Sales Corporation, Smt. Kusum Aggarwal wife of Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta etc. Diversion of funds in FY 2017-18 i.e. AY 2018-19. AO noted that since assessee has no substantive documentary evidence to furnish in support of that it was not working as conduit for circulating the funds between Dev Wines Group concerned. AO further noted that assessee has earned income to the tune of Rs. 44,50,000/- (44,50,00,000 @1% = 44,50,000) received as commission income after taking 1% of total value of transaction of Rs. 44,50,00,000/- (287500000+157500000) and the same was not offered for taxation during the year under consideration. Therefore, the same was added to the income of the assessee. Against the same, the assessee appealed before the Ld.CIT(A) who simply upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order and AO in his assessment order has observed that since assessee has no substantive documentary evidence to furnish in support of that it was not working as conduit for Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e circulating the funds between Dev Wines Group concerned and made the addition in dispute. In view of the aforesaid discussions especially in the absence of substantive documentary evidence as noted by the AO and keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute viz. on the issue of merit as well as on jurisdictional issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the requisite documents/evidences. Assessee is also directed to furnish all the requisite documents/ evidences to the AO to enable him to decide the issues in dispute adequately and fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. My aforesaid decision for assessment year 2018-19 will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal relevant to assessment year 2019-20 also. 5. In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31.10.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Date: 31-10-2025 SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "