IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3615/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18)

Rakshit Estates Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, HSIIDC Limited. Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Plot No. 11, Basement, J 2.1, UdhyogVihar, Phase-V, Sector 83, Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: AAGCR0135G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ramesh Chander, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 19/06/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The Ground of appeal are as under:-

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals ("CIT-A")

was not justified in law and on facts in not appreciating the submissions made and the information and documents submitted by the appellant during the course of the appeal proceedings and in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) passing the impugned assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) by making an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 62,43,351 being 20% of the advance received by the appellant from the applicant customers during the year.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO making the ad hoc addition of Rs. 62,43,351 out of the application money received from the intending customers as participation amount to acquire plot in the appellant's proposed project in spite of their complete details provided by the appellant during the course of the assessment as well as the appeal proceedings, e.g. name, address, PAN, amount received from each applicant customer, indicating the mode of payment along with their Application Forms and such advance being duly reflected in the audited financial statements of the appellant.

3. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order making an ad hoc addition of Rs. 62,43,351 without any basis and merely on suspicion, surmises and conjectures and without even making proper investigations by exercising his powers under section 131/133 of theAct to call for information from the applicant customers to satisfy himself and without pointing out any specific instance where he was not satisfied with the appellant's explanation warranting the said addition.

4. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order making an ad hoc addition of Rs. 62,43,351, without issuing a show cause notice before making the impugned addition, thus, denying the appellant an opportunity to confront the same which is against the principles of natural justice.

5. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in law and on facts in passing the impugned order in a mechanical manner without specifying the proper section and provisions of law justifying the ad hoc addition and without appreciating/rebutting the submissions of the appellant along with the information and documents furnished during the course of assessment/appeal proceedings.

6. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in law and on facts in not affording a proper opportunity to the appellant of being heard in the matter as requested during the course of the appeal proceedings which is in violation of the principle of natural justice.

Additional Grounds of Appeal:

“07. That in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not noticing that the assessment order framed by the Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4) Gurgaon was bad in law as it was without jurisdiction in as much as the Return of Income was not filed in his jurisdiction and that initial notice us 143(2) pi