THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21)

Ambience Developers and Vs. PCIT (Central)

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 341, 2^nd Floor, L-4, Green Park Exten. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Delhi – 110016 Delhi – 110055 (cid:1)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAECA6894P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &

Sh. Meenal Goyal, CA Ms. Nidhi Mangla Adv. &

Ms. Tanya, Adv.

Respondent by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Ld. PCIT(Central)-2, Delhi both dated 29.02.2024 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Orders dated 03.08.2021 &

18.04.2022 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle 20, Delhi under Section

143(3) of the Act, for Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 respectively.

2. Both the appeals are found to be barred by limitation for 332 & 330 days respectively, in support of which an application for condonation of delay in each of the appeals preferred by the assessee has been filed before us.

3. In fact, at the first instance the assessee initially assailed the revisionary orders passed by the Ld. PCIT (Central) Delhi-2 under Section 263 of the Act both dated 29.02.2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by and under the order dated 26.03.2025 pleased to dispose of the Writ Petitions by granting liberty to the petitioner, the assessee before us, to avail the alternative efficacious statutory remedy by filing appeals before the Tribunal and thereafter the assessee could file the appeals before us. The explanation so rendered by the assessee in preferring the appeals late is thus, found to be justified. We further find that there is no prejudice caused to the respondent department in getting the appeals admitted by us and further that unless the appeals are admitted irreparable loss and injury would cause to the appellant. Hence, the delay is condoned and both the appeals are admitted for consideration on merit.

3. Since both the appeals preferred by the assessee are on identical issues, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order by taking ITA No.1868/Del/2025 for Assessment Year

2018-19 as a lead case.

4. The assessee before us is a real estate developer, filed its return of income on 29.10.2018 declaring loss as per normal provision from business or profession of Rs.19,52,51,093/- and income in terms of the provision of MAT of Rs.17,09,20,004/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 was served upon the assessee followed by notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire dated 09.12.2020 and 12.06.2021 directing the assessee to furnish the details/information/documents for the relevant assessment years in compliance thereto the assessee duly furnished the details. The same was examined/verified on test check basis and the return filed by the assessee has been accepted.

5. Thereafter a notice dated 07.02.2023 issued under the signature of the Ld. PCIT (Central) Delhi-2 was served upon the assessee initiating revisionary proceeding under Section 263 of the Act alleging the order of assessment dated 03.08.2021 under Section 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned loss of Rs.19,52,51,093/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of incorrect categorization of business income as rental income, incorrect claim of interest expense against business income and wrongful claim of standard deduction made b