IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Years : 2017-18)

DCIT, Circle 19 (1), vs. Rakshit Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. C – 1/207, 2^nd Floor, Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085.

(PAN : AAECR2414E)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date of Order : 21.11.2025

O R D E R

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. The Revenue has filed appeal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated

14.08.2024 for AY 2017-18.

“(i) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in not appreciating that detailed investigation was already carried out by the Investigation Wing on the issue of Bogus Short Term Capital Loss from Alankit Group and the assessee was not able to substantiate its claim with evidences."

(ii) "Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the information received from the Investigation Wing is a valid piece of information."

(iii) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that it WDS established by the Investigation Wing after detailed investigation that Aneri Fincap is bogus/paper entity and the assessee was not able to substantiate the Loan of Rs.75,00,000/- from the aforesaid bogus entity."

(iv) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.75,00,000/- on the issue of loan from bogus entity and also in deleting the commission of Rs.2,25,000/ on the aforesaid accommodation entry of Rs.75,00,000/-."

2. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue, however, the assessee seeks to rely upon the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the additions on merit, by contending that the order of ld. CIT (A) need be upheld even on the ground that the assessment so framed is without jurisdiction as the same is a legal ground, which was taken before ld. CIT (A) as well, however, the same can be taken at any stage of the proceedings even de hors Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. He further submitted that since the assessee had succeeded in the appeal fully on merits, it did not prefer an appeal, however the Revenue has filed the instant appeal, the assessee seeks to support the order of the ld. CIT (A) as provided in Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. As such, in view of Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the assessee seeks to raise, urge and argue the ground challenging the initiation of proceedings, in an appeal filed by the Revenue. He thus prayed that the assessee be permitted to make its submissions in respect of the contention as was being specifically raised vide ground nos. 2 and 4 before the ld. CIT (A) and was also decided by him in his impugned order. He, therefore, prayed, this application be taken as a notice of motion to raise the following legal grounds, in support of the order of the ld. CIT (A) :-

"Additional Ground No.1 : That on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the instant reassessment proceedings so initiated are with non application of mind, based on change of opinion and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of provisions of section 147/ 148 of the Act. That further, the instant proceedings are also barred by limitation as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome (P) Ltd. vs PCIT reported in 477 ITR 133.

Additional Ground No.2 : That on the facts and circumstances of the case the approval accorded under section 151 of the Act is a mechanica