##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AND

SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.802/Del/2025

Assessment Year : 2018-19

M/s GDR Finance and Leasing Vs. Assessment Unit,

Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer,

323, Agrawal Plaza, NFAC.

DDA Community Centre,

Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi – 110 088.

PAN: AAACG2363D

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate;

Shri Rupinder Aggarwal, Shri R.P.

Mall, Shri Uma Shankar, Ms Suman

Verma & Ms Vidushi Aggarwal,

Advocates

Revenue by : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025

Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

ORDER

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM

The appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order dated 23.01.2025 of

the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, [hereinafter

referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 22.03.2023 of

ITA No.802/Del/2025

the ld. AO/Assessment Unit, Income-tax Deptt. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

ld. AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed ITR on 31.10.2018

disclosing total income at Rs.22,24,590/- from business profit and other sources.

There was credible information that the company availed accommodation entries

from shell company M/s K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.47,65,476/-.

The case was reopened after following proceedings u/s 148A and taken up for

scrutiny. Notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2022, notice u/s 143(2) dated 20.10.2022

and notice u/s 142 (1) dated 20.10.2022 and show cause notice dated 16.03.2023

were issued. The assessee, in response to the notice u/s 148 dated 19.04.2022, e-

filed the return of income. On completion of proceedings, the ld. AO, vide order

dated 22.03.2023, made addition of Rs.47,65,476/-.

3. Against the order dated 22.03.2023 of the ld. AO, the appellant-assessee

filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated

23.01.2025.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee preferred the present appeal with

the following grounds:-

“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law when he

has confirmed the addition made by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax

Department of Rs. 47,65,476/-.

2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the

proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated on an

2

ITA No.802/Del/2025

allegation that the assessee had taken accommodation entries of Rs.

47,65,476/- from M/s K. G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., which had duly been denied

by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 A(b) of the Act and has

been accepted by the AO while framing assessment when such an addition

has not been made by the AO; whereas the addition made was in respect of

an allegation which was not the subject matter of reopening of assessment

and as such no addition could have been made.

3. That the learned CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that the

instant proceedings under section 148 and 148A(d) of the Act had been

initialed by '‘jurisdictional assessing officer” and not by “faceless

assessing officer”, which is against the mandate of section 151A of the Act

and also, the E Assessment Scheme, 2022. Thus as such, the impugned

proceedings and assessment thereto made were without jurisdiction and

untenable in law.

4. That the findings of the learned CIT(A) in order in para 5.1, 5.2, &

5.3 are not only perverse but overlooks the fact that the assessee had paid

the interest on the sum genuinely borrowed by it and utilized by it for its

business and that said sum borrowed had not been held to be undisclosed

income of the assessee.

5. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, in response to

the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act of M/s K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. had re-

confirmed the loan and also the amount paid by the assessee as interest and

as such the findings that the assessee had failed to establish the

genuineness o