IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No.2328/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN , J.M. :

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated

10.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the assessment order dated 23.05.2023 making addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act was confirmed.

2. The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the appellant/assessee company submitted its return of income in ITR-6 dated 31st October, 2015for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 22,480/-. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 2nd December, 2015 without modifying the return of income. Subsequently, an information was received that, a search & seizure operation conducted on 23.12.2019 at the premises of Joginder Pal Gupta in the case of DAG Group, he is found to be engaged in providing accommodation entries through various concerns floated for this purpose and the assessee was stated to the amongst the beneficiaries who has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 8,00,000/-; Rs. 15,00,000/-; Rs. 15,00,000/-; Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- from M/s. B.R. Buildtech P. Ltd.; M.s. RSKM Traders P. Ltd.; M/s. Bij Buildcon P. Ltd.; M/s. Anuj Buildcon P. Ltd. and M/s. MKR Trading P. Ltd. respectively totaling to Rs. 64,00,000/- during Financial Year 2014-15. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in this case on 30.06.2021. In compliance to the judgment dated

04.05.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal and in accordance with the CBDT’s directions issued vide Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022, the assessee was provided with the information/material relied upon by this office which suggests that income for the relevant year has escaped assessment, and was given an opportunity as per the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee filed reply to the notice under section 148A(b) of the act and subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the act was issued on 25.07.2022 and in response to the notice u/s 148 of the act, assessee did not file any valid return. Hence, the assessment was completed u/s 148 of the Act making an addition of Rs. 64,00,000/-.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made show the assessment order.

4. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal, raising following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the

learned CIT (A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assesse

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by A.O despite approval by learned PCCIT being defective and mechanical in nature while approving notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d)

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by AO a