IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4594/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13)

K M V Industries Income Tax Officer, D-5/105, First Floor, Ward-58(1), Delhi.

Awadh Complex, Laxmi Nagar, Vs.

Delhi-110092.

PAN-AAJFK4576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Suresh K Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), [“CIT(A)”, in short] National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dt. 04.07.2025 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3)

of the Act, dt. 28.12.2019 for AY 2012-13.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income, declaring total income on 31.03.2013 declaring income of Rs. 9,11,440/- and the assessment order was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30.03.2015 at a total income of Rs

10,07,610/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated by the Assessing Officer on the premise that assessee has taken accommodation entries of purchases from M/s U.P. Steel and, the reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019 wherein total addition of Rs.3,08,75,500/- was made to the income already assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and finally total income of the assessee was re-assessed at 3,18,75,500/-.

3. Against the said the order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:

1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions of section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act ignoring the contention of appellant that the proceedings have been initiated by the AO without application of independent mind on the material, if any, provided by the Inv. Wing of the department. Therefore, such reassessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that sanction u/s 151 of IT Act as provided with the copy of the reason recorded shows mechanical satisfaction by the approving authority.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the case in upholding the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act which is not properly initiated and therefore need be quashed as the appellants case is covered by proviso to section 147 of the IT Act and that being the case the AO has not only failed to invoke first proviso but also failed to give a finding as which material facts the appellant failed to disclose fully and truly during original proceedings and in the absence of any such finding, the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order both are bad in law and also because such proceedings are as a result of change of mind by the successor incumbent on the same set of facts.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the cases in upholding the addition of Rs.3,08,75,500/- u/s 69C of the IT Act holding the purchases made from M/s U.P, Steel as unexplained expenditure ignoring the fact that the purchases in question are duly accounted in books and said sectio