IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCONTANT MEMBER ITA No.2007 & 2008/Del/2022 Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2017-18 Red Fort Shahjahan Properties Vs. ACIT Ltd, N-266, Greater Kailash, Circle – 19(1)

Part-I, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi PAN No.AADCR6247E Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Sh. Tarun Chanana, Advocate Respondent Ms. Shaveta Nakra Datta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

ORDER

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These appeals are filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 27.06.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 19.04.2022 passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act, for the A.Y.2014-15 and 2017-18 respectively.

2. The assessee in both these appeals filed the following additional grounds of appeal and for the A.Y.2014-15 the additional grounds are as under :-

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the final assessment order passed pursuant thereto are illegal, without jurisdiction, bad in law, and barred by limitation, and hence liable to be quashed.

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, pursuant to the directions of the DRP, has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and is therefore liable to be quashed as barred by limitation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment passed in the case of Fiberhome India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, New Delhi ITA No. 91/2024 [Delhi High Court] [05.02.2024); and Rolls Royce India Pvt. Ltd. us. DCIT, TP 3(2)(1), Delhi ITA No. 252/Del/2022 [ITAT Delhi] [04.07.2025).

In support of the above ground, a date-wise tabulation is provided below for ease of reference:

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the final assessment order passed pursuant thereto are illegal, without jurisdiction, bad in law, and barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Act, and hence liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd.

[2022] 445 ITR 537 (Madras) [09-06-2022).

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the DRP are invalid, non-est, and bad in law, as they were issued without a Document Identification Number ("DIN"), in clear violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Hence, the DRP's directions, as well as the consequential final assessment order passed by the AO in pursuance thereof, are illegal, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed.

3. Referring to the petition filed for admission of additional ground the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these additional grounds were filed initially by the assessee on 08.08.2025. However, subsequently a letter was filed on 13.02.2026 withdrawing ground No.3 and 4 of additional grounds. Therefore, it is submitted that the additional ground No.3 and 4 may be dismissed as withdrawn.

4. Coming to additional ground No.1 and 2 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these grounds are purely legal, in nature and going to the very root of the matter and no investigation of new facts are required and therefore, the same may be admitted and disposed of. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383).

5. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the additional ground No.1 and 2 of grounds of appeal we find that these grounds are purely legal grounds and going to the very validity of the assessment fra