IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1583/DEL/2020[A.Y 2014-15]

M/s Singla Realters Ltd Vs. The I.T.O B-40, Madhu Vihar Ward – 23(4)

Gali No. 15, I.P. Estate, Delhi Delhi PAN: AAGCS 4261 E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Shri Ashu Jain, Adv Department By :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

Thisappealby the assessee is preferred against the order of theCIT(A)- 8, Delhi dated 14.01.2020 pertaining to A.Y 2014-15.

2. The grievances of the assessee read as under:

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the

CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified

i) In confirming the disallowance of Rs 16,66,640/- on account of expenses u/s 37.

ii) In confirming the addition of Rs 16,66,640/- on account of bogus purchases whereas the assessing officer had disallowed the amount u/s 37.

iii) In confirming the addition of Rs 92,72,000/- incorrectly and unjustifiably made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the IT Act in the account of Shiv Shakti Realtors Pvt Ltd and the CIT(A) also further erred in confirming such addition without finding the confirmations incorrect.

iv) In confirming the addition of Rs 20,00,000/- in the account of Naveen Agarwal/Archita incorrectly and unjustifiably made by the assessing officer u/s 68.

v) In confirming the addition of Rs 28,00,000/- u/s 68 in the account of Mrs Poonam Chawla on the basis of suspicion and also ignoring the evidences filed in support of the genuineness of the credit.

vi) In confirming the addition of Rs 20,00,000/- u/s 68 in the account of Sheetal Gupta on the basis of suspicion and also without finding the evidences filed as incorrect and wrong.

vii) In confirming the addition of Rs 1,00,000/- made by the assessing officer u/s 68 in the account of Mrs T.

Poonam.

viii) In confirming the disallowance of expenses of Rs 1,93,690/- u/s 37 without any reason, basis or evidences and also further erred in confirming this disallowance on adhoc basis.

3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 pertain to the addition on account of expenses of Rs. 16,66,640/-.

4. Brief facts are that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate and construction. The company engages security guards on salary basis for the purpose of maintaining and safeguarding its properties.

5. The assessee claimed and expense of Rs 20,07,400/- towards purchase of construction material. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted sample vouchers of Rs. 3,40,760/- only which was allowed by the Assessing Officer and remaining expenses was disallowed.Further the assessee claimed expense of Rs 6,45,632/- towards travelling out of which the AO disallowed Rs 1,93,690/- in absence of primary details. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act.

6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the company had purchased construction materialfor which material purchase details were submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A), including vendor names, addresses, voucher numbers, dates, and amounting to Rs. 20,07,400/-. The Assessing Officer did not raise any further queries nor conducted any verification with the creditors, which clearly establishes the acceptability of the expenses incurred.The said expenses are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and are necessary to maintain the properties in proper and usable condition. The Assessing Officer has not even doubted or rejected the books of accounts. Accordingly, the ld. counsel for the assessee requested to restrict the disallowance at an adhoc rate of 20%.

8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities be