IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sanjay Singh Rana Vs. The P.C.I.T S-222, School Block Delhi - 20 Shakarpur, Delhi PAN – AAKPR 6259 E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Shri Shilpa Gupta, CA Department By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of ld.

PCIT, Delhi-20 dated 31.03.2024 for A.Y 2015-1

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in la and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and has erred in holding the reassessment order dated 28-03-2022 passed by Ld. AO as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and further erred in enhancing the assessment made to the extent of Rs.1,65,03,478/- and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in passing the impugned order u/s 263 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld.

PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding as under: -

•

That AO should have brought the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,65,03,478/- to tax in the year under consideration instead of net LTCG.

•

That AO should have also calculated alleged commission @2%

on the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,65,03,478/-.

4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 which is bad in law inter alia for this reason that the reassessment order passed u/s 147/144B dated 28.03.2022 which is sought to be revised u/s 263 itself was invalid on various legal and factual grounds and thus proceeding initiated u/s 263 against the invalid reassessment order is clearly bad in law.”

3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. At the very outset, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that remedy would lie when the order pursuant to the direction u/s 263 of the Act would be passed. The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed to condone the delay.

5. Per contra, the ld. DR raised no serious objection to the same.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that there is a delay of 57 days for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After perusing the application for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee seem to be reasonable. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal.

7. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as emanating from the statement of facts submitted by the assessee are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary and also engaged in the proprietorship business of trading Fabrics and Readymade Garments in the name of M/s J.M. Knits. In addition to this, the assessee has long term capital gain from sale of shares as well. The assessee had filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 24,93,630/- for the A.Y

2015-16 on 30.09.2015.

8. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, issued through email on 01.04.2021 on the basis on the information received by Assessing Officer’s office from ITO(Inv), Unit 7 Delhi and DDIT(Inv), Rohtak.

9. On filing of ITR in complian