IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Plot No.31 B, Industrial Area, NIT Faridabad, Faridabad.

Faridabad - 121 001 (Haryana).

(PAN : AACCV6675P) ITA No.3915/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

DCIT, Central Circle, vs. Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. Plot No.31 B, Industrial Area, NIT Faridabad, Faridabad - 121 001 (Haryana).

(PAN : AACCV6675P)

CO No.122/Del/2024 (in ITA No.3915/DEL/2024) (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Plot No.31 B, Industrial Area, NIT Faridabad, Faridabad.

Faridabad - 121 001 (Haryana).

(PAN : AACCV6675P)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pavan Ved, Advocate Shri Mohit Gupta, CA Shri Mirza Baig, CA Shri Sarthak Agarwal, CA REVENUE BY : Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date of Order : 19.03.2025

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 27.06.2024 for the AY 2011-12.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.3550/Del/2024 are as under :-

1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the assessing officer was bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and void-ab-initio.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in law in determining the total income of the appellant at Rs.57,15,05,400/- u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the returned income of Rs. 18,87,66,500/- and thereby making erroneous additions of Rs. 38,27,38,898/-.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by making erroneous, arbitrary and ad-hoc additions based on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises amounting to Rs. 38,27,38,898/-

without considering the submissions made by the appellant.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the additions amounting to Rs.3,88,42,034/- (on three counts) and not deleting the ad-hoc and arbitrary additions in entirety amounting to Rs. 38,27,38,898/- vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.06.2024 which additions have been made erroneously & arbitrarily by the Ld. AO against the principles of natural justice while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in restricting the additions/disallowances to the extent of Gross Profit Rate of the appellant amounting to Rs.3,43,34,313/- as against deleting the entire ad-hoc addition/disallowance of Rs.27,27,10,982/-, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not deleting the ad-hoc & arbitrary addition/disallowance of travelling expenditure amounting to Rs.15,71,356/- which additions/disallowances have been made by just applying ad-hoc random percentages without any basis by the Ld. AO, which needs to be deleted.

7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not deleting the ad-hoc and arbitrary addition/disallowance of Rs. 29,36,365/- which addition has been made by the Ld. AO by wrongly invoking the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D without establishing any connection whatsoever between the expense disallowed and exempt income earned and applied the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D without recording any cogent reasons, which needs to be deleted.

8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO needs to