IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3914/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 3915/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) ITA No. 3916/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12)

DCIT Vs Gynia Holding Ltd.

Central Circle-19, Room C/o Sandeep Chilana, Adv.

No. 362, ARA Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Jhandewalan Extension, Offices, Advocate for the New Delhi respondent, C-56, LGF, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 PAN: AAFCG6058E Appellant Respondent C.O No. 31/Del/2016 (in ITA No. 3916/Del/2015)

C.O No. 342/Del/2015 (in ITA No. 3915/Del/2015) C.O No. 343/Del/2015 (in ITA No. 3914/Del/2015)

Gynia Holding Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-19, C/o Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Room No. 362, ARA Chilana & Chilana Law Centre, E-2, Offices, Advocate for the Jhandewalan Extension, respondent, C-56, LGF, New Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 PAN: AAFCG6058E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Amit Goel, CA,Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv, Sh. Mohit Jain, CA, Sh. Sandeep Chilana, Adv & Ms. Anjali Jain, Adv.

Revenue by Sh. M. S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The above three appeals and three Cross Objections are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee respectively, pertaining to Assessment Years2009-10 to 2011-12, wherein both the parties have assailed the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, (‘Ld. CIT(A)’

for short)New Delhi dated 30.03.2015.

2. The Revenue have raised identical grounds of Appeal in all the appeals for the sake convenience, the grounds of appeal of A.Y. 2009-

10 are reproduced as under:

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that there is merit in the contention of the appellant regarding the unlawful initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of Income Tax Act.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that assessee company is not resident in terms of provisions under section 6(3)(ii) of the 1.T. Act for the purpose of tax liability whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and various statements of Sh. Ajay Kalsi/Sh. Anil Aggarwal, it has been established that control and management of the assessee company is situated wholly in India.

3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring that underlying assets and sources of revenue of all the overseas companies are the Indian Companies.

4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the substantial evidence in form of seized material, E-mails, Share Holding pattern showing the ultimate control and management of Indian companies and overseas companies lies with Sh. Ajay Kalsi and Smt. Mala Kalsi, who have created different verticals of corporate veil under them to avoid taxability in India.

5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India.

6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting) the addition of Rs.

706,11,22,812/-made by Assessing Officer.

7. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The ground of the Cross Objection in CO for A.Y. 2009-10is as under:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the notice issued under section 153C of the Act and the consequent proceedings initiated in this case is bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132