IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3558/DEL/2024[A.Y.2015-16]

Karambir Singh Vs. The Income-tax Officer Plot No. 91, Near Neelkamal Ward – 1(4)

Water Factory, Transport Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Sector – 58, Haryana PAN: AQIPS 3287 P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : ShriJitender Wadhwa, CA Department By :ShriOm Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This appealby the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhidated 27.06.2024 for A.Y 2015-16.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:

“1. That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at a total income of Rs. 5,56,17590/- after making an addition of Rs. 5,39,34,469/- and accordingly denies his liability to pay tax and interest thereon.

2. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment order passed U/s 147 of the Act is void as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Knight Riders Sports (P.) Ltd. v. Astt. CIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 11/295 Taxman 537/459 ITR 16 has clearly stated that reopening of assessment is not permissible based on change of opinions as the AO does not have any power to review his own assessment when during the original assessment Petitioner has provided all the relevant information which was considered by the AO before passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. This would be their position even if there is an audit objection. In the present case also, the Ld. A.O had originally completed the scrutiny proceedingU/s 143(3) and thereafter initiated the reassessment proceeding U/s 147 for the same assessment year.

3. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,90,49,919/- made by the Ld. A.O, on account of alleged double claim of the diesel expenses whereas the assessee had already clarified it during the assessment proceeding as well as the appeal proceedings the diesel expenses were not claimed twice, only transfer entries were passed in the books of accounts which reduced the balance of one expense and increased the balance of other expense.

4. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,48,84,551/- made U/s 40(a)(ia) by the Ld. A.O, on account of non-deduction of tax at source on freight payment of Rs. 8,29,48,503/- whereas as per law there was no requirement to deduct tax at source U/s 194C when the transporter has less than 10 vehicles.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment made U/s 147 was bad in law as recording of reasons and approval by higher authority U/s 151 both are totally mechanical. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd V/s Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 25.09.2017 [W.P. (C)

1357/2016].

6. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment order passed U/s 147 was against the Principal of Natural Justice.

7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.:

3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed its Return of Income for the A.Y under consideration declaring an income of Rs. 16,83,120/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and assessment u/s

143(3) was completed on returned income only.Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 to examine for the following two issues:

i. assessee has claimed the Diesel expense twice i.e., Rs 2,90,49,919/-

Non-deduction of tax a