IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4557/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12)

Anant Roop (Delhi) Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-2(4), 12, Central Lane, Vs. Delhi First Floor, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110001.

PAN-AAECA4991K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Aditya Sarin, Advocate Department by Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/02/2025

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dt. 31.07.2024 in appeal No. NFAC/2010-

11/10157297 for AY 2011-12.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is a Pvt. Ltd Company and had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 though it is mandatorily required to file return of income in case of a company. AO had information that the appellant had purchased immovable property of Rs. 2,68,61,000/- and since no return was filed, AO initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 148 on 30.03.2018. In response the appellant filed the return on 10.5.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 17,559/-. AS the assessee has not complied with the statutory notices, the AO passed the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 and made an addition of Rs. 2,68,61,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act. Thereafter it was come to the notice of the AO that interest u/s. 234A(3) levied at Rs. 89,167/- was short as it was charged for one month as against for 80 months, a notice for the rectification u/s. 154 was issued which also remained uncompiled. Thus, the AO passed an order u/s. 154 dt. 17.3.2020 wherein the interest u/s. 234A is increased from Rs. 89,167/- to Rs. 71,33,375/- . Aggrieved to this, the appellant is in appeal before us by taking following grounds of appeals:

“1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred as ‘the Act’) is incorrect, bad in law, misconceived and have been passed without appreciating the submissions made in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred while upholding the assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AOQ’) u/s 154 r.w.s 147 r.w.s of 144 of the Income Tax, 1961 which is incorrect, bad in law and have been passed without considering the submission of the Assessee.

3. That the initiation of reassessment proceeding in the present case by way of issuance of notice w/s 148 of the Act without serving upon the notice, reasons to believe and the sanction of specified authority is void ab initio as it is bad in law and also without jurisdiction.

4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred while issuing notice u/s 148 without recording reasons by independent application of mind, without creating the live link/nexus between the tangible material & formation of belief and merely initiated the proceeding on the basis of borrowed satisfaction/information received from NMS/AIMS.

5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of 32,68,61,000/- made by Ld. Assessing officer on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act wherein the Assessee herein has duly declared the source of investment in the financial statements filed along with ITR.

6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred while upholding the charging of interest by the Ld. Assessing Officer against the returned income declaring loss of Rs. 17,559/-.

7. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

8. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the charging of interest by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. 9. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.”

3. At the outset it is seen that the present appeal emanates from the rectification order passed u/s 154 dt. 17.3.2020 wherei