IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3902/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

ITA No.3923/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

ITA No.3925/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Mukesh Khurana, vs. DCIT/ACIT, B – 7/100, Extension, Central Circle II, Safdarjung Enclave, South West Delhi, Noida.

New Delhi – 110 029.

(PAN : AMYPK1514B) ITA No.3906/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

ITA No.3905/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

ITA No.3904/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

DCIT/ACIT, vs. Mukesh Khurana, Central Circle II, B – 7/100, Extension, Noida. Safdarjung Enclave, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 110 029.

(PAN : AMYPK1514B)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of Order : .03.2025

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 27.06.2024 for the AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18.

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. First we take up ITA No.3902/Del/2024 for AY 2015-16 as the lead case and the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal in Assessment Year 2015-16 :-

“1. That the order passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur, is contrary to law and facts, and the Ld. CIT(A} has erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.5,54,50,000/- in respect of unsecured loans received, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That the assessment framed under section 147 is bad in law as the notice under section 148 was issued on 01.04.2021 without adhering to the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021, specifically without complying with the provisions of section 148A.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the reasons recorded were based upon STR even though, the STR was in the name of AR Land crafts LLP and not in the name of Mukesh Khurana, the appellant. That the CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that there is wrong assumption of facts on the part of the AO while mentioning the figure of escaped income of Rs. 80 crores in the reasons recorded which is without any basis and as such, there was complete non application of mind on part of the AO.

4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the A.O. to the tune of Rs.5,54,50,000/- u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that there was no proper service of notice under section 148.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening under section 148 was initiated solely based on information received from the Investigation Wing, without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. That the observations in the reasons recorded with regard to deposits of Rs. 80 crore being undisclosed income are based upon suspicion without there being any material on record.

5.1 That the CIT (A) has erred in law in not appreciating that the investigation report or relevant excerpts on the basis of which reasons were recorded were never provided to the assessee which is against the judicial precedents.

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ~ 4.81 crore pertaining to the unsecured loan received from the sister concern, M/s AR Land Craft LLP who in turn had received funds from alleged paper entity M/s Evergree