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.4592/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13)

ITA No.4593/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15)

RMP Holdings Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 138-C, Block-B, Group-4, Ward-20(3), Delhi.

Vivek Vihar, Dilshad Garden, Vs.

Delhi-110095.

PAN-AAACR5533N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Suresh K Gupta, CA Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 04/02/2026

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the two separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for Assessment Year 2012-13 dated 16.06.2025 and Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 30.06.2025 arising out of the assessment orders passed u/s

147/143(3) of the Act.

2. Since both the appeals filed by the assessee are having similar issues, therefore, they are taken together and decided by a common order.

3. First we take the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income on 13.09.2012 and the assessment order was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 03.03.2015 at a total income of Rs 2,02,040/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated by the Assessing Officer on the premise that assessee has taken accommodation entries in the shape of loans from Jain Brothers and, the reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2019 wherein total addition of Rs.1,35,77,494/- was made to the income already assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and finally total income of the assessee was re-assessed at 1,37,79,530/-.

5. Against the said the order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that impugned assessment is invalid and without I jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions of section 147-148/151/153C of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act ignoring the contention of appellant that the proceedings have been initiated by the AO without application of independent mind on the material, if any, provided by the Inv. Wing of the department. Therefore, such reassessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that sanction u/s 151 of IT Act as provided with the copy of the reason recorded shows mechanical satisfaction by the approving authority.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the case in upholding the reassessment proceedings us 147 of the IT Act which is not properly initiated and therefore need be quashed as the appellants case is covered by proviso to section 147 of the IT Act and that being the case the AO has not only failed to invoke first proviso but also failed to give a finding as which material facts the appellant failed to disclose fully and truly during original proceedings and in the absence of any such finding, the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order both are bad in law and also because such proceedings are as a result of change of mind by the successor incumbent on the same set of facts.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case ha