IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4162/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17]

Delhi 20-F, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi PAN: ADYPD 0151 A (Appellant) Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Shri Mahir Aggarwal, Adv Shri Uma Shankar, Adv Department By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld.

CIT(A)-23, Delhi dated 31.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2016-17.

2. The grievances of the Revenue read as under:

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 100 crores made under Section 69A, despite the presence of corroborative evidence in the form of a seized document (Annexure-Al, page no. 14) and statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act.

3. Whether the retraction of statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, made much later and without contemporaneous evidence, can override the evidentiary value of such statements in the absence of any allegation of coercion or mis-recording therein. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in holding that nominal shareholding of the assessee precludes the addition of the entire amount of cash receipt of Rs. 100 crores in his hand u/s 69A of the Act, ignoring the factual matrix indicating beneficial ownership and control of Sh. Gaurav Dalmia on the entities involved in the transaction.

5. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in applying principles of consistency from other assessments, i.e., Rakesh Aggarwal's case, contrary to the settled law that each assessment is to be judged independently based on specific evidence applicable to the assessee in question.

6. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in law in relying on the valuation report submitted by the assessee, valuation of the shares on DCF method, ignoring the fact that:



there were flaws in the valuation report as pointed out in the assessment order, and 

the valuation report does not hold significance when the incriminating material relating to unaccounted cash component in the transaction of shares were found and corroborated by statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the key persons handling the transactions.

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in accepting the assessee's explanation that the transaction of Rs. 100 crores recorded at Sl. No. 31 of Page No. 14 of Annexure-1 pertains to an investment made by Dalmia Group Holding in JM Financial Mutual Funds.”

3. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 raising the following additional legal grounds of appeal in support of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):

"Additional Ground No. 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in overlooking the basic fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search and the assessment as contemplated under section 153A is not a de novo assessment and as such, the additions so made by assessing officer are beyond the scope of assessment under section

153A of the Act and are liable to be deleted in totality."

Additional ground no 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the approval accorded under section 153D of the Act (any) is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without there being any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed."

4. It is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that the respondent is entitled to raise a legal ground at any stage of the proceedings, eve