IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3533/Del./2025, A.Y. 2021-22 Amazon Smart Commerce Solutions Vs. Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, H-9, Block B-1, Delhi-1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, New Delhi PAN: AAECT4063H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Smt. Deepashree Rao, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Pragya, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 15/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Pr.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 28.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 and the assessment order was passed under section

143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2021–22 on 13.03.2022, and the return was processed u/s 143(1). Similarly, the regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was completed vide order dated 15.12.2022. Subsequently, the entire set up documents pertaining to assessment proceedings undertaken by the Assessing Officer (AO) was examined by the Principal CIT, Delhi–1, and it was observed that, prima facie, the AO had passed the order which is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on several counts. Accordingly, the learned PCIT issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act to the assessee on 12.12.2023, asking the assessee to explain why the assessment order passed by the AO should not be held as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

2.1 In the aforesaid notice, the Principal CIT made a detailed observation with regard to issues relating to (i) Related Party Transactions, (ii) Platform Selling Expenses, (iii) Provision for Doubtful Advances, (iv) Aging Goods, (v) Changes in liability arising from financing activities, (vi) Trade Payables, (vii) Purchase of traded goods, and (viii) advertisement expenses and asked the assessee to explain and substantiate the same.

2.2 In response to the above show-cause notice, the assessee filed written submissions from time to time. After considering the various written submissions and arguments of the learned AR, further, the assessee also raised the issue regarding the scope of the revisionary powers of the PCIT under section 263 of the Act. The learned PCIT elaborately dealt with the issue of the scope of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act at pages 13 to 20 of the impugned order and rejected the issues raised by the assessee. With regard to the issue of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the learned PCIT dealt with each issue elaborately in the impugned order and observed that the Assessing Officer had raised queries to the assessee through various questionnaires issued from time to time during the assessment proceedings and observed that the AO issued a total three questionnaires raising various queries, vide notices dated 28.07.2022, 18.11.2022, and 07.12.2022, and finally completed the assessment on 15.12.2022. He reproduced the contents of these three questionnaires in the impugned order. After reproducing the questionnaires, the learned PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer had passed a “ten line” assessment order, and he reproduced the entire assessment order in the impugned order. After considering the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the assessee from time to time in response to the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act, the learned PCIT dealt with the following issues:

i. Related Party Transactions, the learned PCIT reproduced the submissions made by the assessee at pages 24 to 26 of the impugned order and observed t