IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No. 4023/Del/2024 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2008-09 SOBHIN BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER, KN/B-11, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, Vs. Ward 24(1), Delhi. C.R. Building, Delhi.

PAN No.AAKCS6251Q अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Suresh K. Gupta, Advocate Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 20.08.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.

CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 03.07.2024 for the AY 2008-09. The Assessee in its appeal raised the following grounds: -

“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 147/148/153C of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and also in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts of the in upholding the reassessment proceedings and consequent the reassessment order as the AO has no power to initiate proceedings u/s 147/148 of IT Act instead proceedings need to be initiated u/s 153C of IT Act.

3. 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.

4. 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 reason recorded shows mechanical satisfaction by the Addl. CIT, Delhi.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,26,55,000/- allegedly treating the acceptance of share capital during the year as unexplained credit within meaning of section 68 of IT Act ignoring the fact that the initial onus has been discharged by the appellant by submitting relevant documents of the share applicant therefore, such addition is not tenable in law.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,84,90,000/- allegedly treating the unsecured loans from the parties in question as unexplained credit within meaning of section 68 of IT Act ignoring the fact that the initial onus has been discharged by the appellant by submitting relevant documents of the lenders therefore, such addition is not tenable in law.

7. The Ld CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the case in upholding action of the Ld AO in making addition of Rs.18,000/- being commission paid @1.8% on the alleged accommodation entry of Rs.10,00,000/- taken during year. Such action is arbitrary and without basis therefore needs be quashed.”

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that ground nos. 1 & 2 of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is in respect of initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 instead of proceedings need to be initiated u/s 153C of the Act and the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta (168 taxmann.com 574). In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and following the decision of the J