IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.475/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14)

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short) dated 10.12.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10194/2019-20 arising out of the order passed u/s 147/148.r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) dated 08.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 23.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.13,24,680/-. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 14,22,340/-. Subsequently based on the information received as a result of survey/search carried out in the case of Shri Anand Jain and Shri Naresh Jain Group of cases on 17.12.2015 and further survey action was carried out at the business premises of the assessee and his family, that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Jain brothers. Accordingly, after recording the reasons, case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. After considering the submissions made by the assessee reassessment order was passed wherein the AO has made the additions of Rs.1,13,96,698/- towards the unsecured loans of Rs.42,20,000/- received from M/s CVH Sea Lives Ltd., M/s Purus Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Uanan Sales Pvt. Ltd. and further addition of Rs.71,76,698/- is made towards the bogus purchases. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A)

confirmed the action of ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 in absence of condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction, the order passed by the AO is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be set aside.

1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment u/s 148 in absence of valid sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

1.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment u/s 148 merely on the change of opinion.

1.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in initiating reassessment u/s 148 in gross violation of dictum laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)

1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in initiating reassessment without alleging any failure on the part of Appellant in disclosing full and truly all primary relevant facts during the original assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

1.5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in initiating reassessment on the basis of third-party investigation report without application of mind.

1.6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in initiating reassessment u/s 148 qua genuineness of unsecured loan as well as purchases disclosed, considered and accepted during the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10th December 2024 passed by the CIT(A) as well as order dated 08 December 2019 passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) manually wi