IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi.

New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana).

(PAN :AAACS2554E)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, CA Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date of Order : 24.10.2025

ORDER

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [for short ‘ld.

CIT (A)]dated 04.01.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its original return of income on

30.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.2,15,340/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the year under consideration.

Subsequently, AO received information from DDIT (Inv), Unit 7(4), New Delhi vide letter dated 29.03.2019 in the case of the assessee. As per the information, it was informed that forfeiture amount of Rs.45.50 lakhs each on entering into Agreement to Sell with Kanwal Jeet Singh Kohli and Charan Jeet Singh Kohli on 15.02.2012 for Rs.3 crores and Rs.4 crores respectively. The AO has reproduced the investigation report at pages 1 & 2 of the assessment order as per which it was informed to the AO that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Brisk Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (BIDPL) and others on 10.10.2018. During the course of investigation, it was observed that assessee is one of the companies of the target group who has entered into an Agreement to Sell with abovesaid two gentlemen on 15.02.2012 for Rs.3 crores and Rs.4 crores respectively. Earnest money of Rs.45.50 lakhs each was paid on 15.12.2012. Later on, due to non-payment of remaining amount, the earnest money was forfeited and claimed as expenses by the assessee in Profit and Loss account during the year under consideration. Further they observed that BIDPL has adopted the same modus operandi to claim forfeited amount as business expenses in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Scrutiny assessment of BIDPL was completed and made addition of Rs.5 crores as forfeiture amount of earnest money. They also observed that the group is involved in dubious transactions to avoid tax and its modus operandi in the process of converting black money. With the above observation, it was also informed that the information found and analysed from the ITR and other documents of the assessee, it was found that assessee has also forfeited the abovesaid amount during the year. In order to verify the above information, assessee was asked to submit relevant information. Since no details were submitted by the assessee, the AO rejected objections raised by the assessee on the reasons for reopening and notice was issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act. Since there was no response from the assessee, the AO proceeded to make the addition of the forfeiture of advance of Rs.99 lakhs and also observed that assessee has claimed certain expenses, according to the Assessing Officer the same are excessive and not explained, accordingly he proceeded to disallow 25%

of the expenditure i.e. Rs.29,20,002/- which comes to Rs.7,30,000/-.

3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-23, New Delhi and filed detailed submissions which are reproduced at pages 3 to 23 of the appellate order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee did not raise any ground regarding reopening of the proceeding’s u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, there is no need to separately adjudicate with the arguments of the assessee. Further ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee for the first time placed certain docu