IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1692/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20)

Hector Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of D-3, Udyog Nagar, Delhi- Income Tax, Circle 29

110041 ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN: AAACH8691R Extension, Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Mayank Patwari, Adv& Sh. Akash Ojha, Adv Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The captioned appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-, 30-New Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] dated 23/02/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20.

2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of assessment proceedings and the issue/service of notice(s) are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 153A is bad in law and without jurisdiction and accordingly the said notice and the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and CIT(A) erred in holding SO.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is non-est as it does not have valid DIN.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 27,99,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on the account of alleged long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted and CIT(A) erred in holding so.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 27,99,00,000/- on the account of alleged long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act, and, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. is liable to be deleted.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income under normal provisions of the Act at Rs. NIL and the income u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was Rs. 10,69,45,558/-. The said return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act at book profit of Rs. 10,69,45,558/- to be taxed as per provisions of AMT/MAT. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 14/10/2020 in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh, his Associates and various transacting parties. During the course of the said search, it was found that the said Manoj Kumar Singh entered into unaccounted cash transactions with the various persons/entities. The premises/locker of the Assessee Company was also covered during the search operations. The assessment proceedings u/s 153A/153(3) of the Act was initiated against the Assessee and an assessment order came to be passed on 26/03/2022 by making an addition of Rs. 27,99,00,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain u/s 45 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/03/2022, Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that during the search operation dated 14/10/2020, no incriminating material was seized in the Assessee’s premises and the impugned addition of Rs. 27,99,00,000/- u/s 45 of the Act was made only based on the statement of Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta, the Director of the Assessee Company, who denied the same while filing the return of income u/s 153A of the Act and also during the assessment proceedings. The L