##PAGE1##

P age | 1 ITA No.1622/Del/2026 Zolijns Designs Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1622/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Zolijns Designs Private Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6 Limited, C-19, Jhandewalan Extension

Nizamuddin West, New Delhi – 110055 New Delhi - 110013

स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAACZ3743L Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Rajat Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2026

O R D E R

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated

17.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1083767384(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 12.03.2025 u/s 147 of the Income

P age | 2 ITA No.1622/Del/2026 Zolijns Designs Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17)

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, CC-6,

New Delhi, for AY: 2016-17.

2. On hearing both sides we find that assesse has not pressed ground No. 1.1 & 1.2 and vide ground No.2.1 assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by questioning the manner in which the jurisdiction was assumed by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act by recording reasons which were not on the basis of any independent inquiry and non-application

of mind.

3. In this context our attention was drawn to the fact that on the basis of information received from insight portal the case of assesse were opened and at page No. 1-2 and page No. 3-4 assessee has provided the copies of insight portal information dated 22.03.2023 and it shows that information was downloaded by two different ID by the same assessing officer and the information mentioned of two amounts one of Rs.1,41,00,000/- and other Rs.1, 07,00,000/-. At page 21-22 appellant has provided copy of notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act along with annexure which forms the basis of reopening and the alleged reasons for reopening and we find that the allegation has been made of assesse receiving cash/cheques

P age | 3 ITA No.1622/Del/2026 Zolijns Designs Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17)

amounting to Rs.2,48,00,000/- for the construction of house of Ms. Madhu

Dawar and this amount was considered to be an escapement of income.

4. It appears that the same AO who had downloaded the information from insight portal has clubbed the two values of Rs.1,41,00,000/- and Rs.1,07,00,000/- to arrive at the figure of Rs.2,48,00,000/- as escapement income while in fact it was only one of the information which was relevant. The same certainly shows non application of mind to the material on record

and non-judicious approach to the issue of re-opening.

5. We then find that assesse had responded to the notice and detailed reply was given copy of which is available at page No. 29 to 36 of the paper book and in same assesse had specifically contended that this escapement of alleged Rs.2,48,00,000/- is not supported by information relied. Assessee had stated that amount of Rs.1,28,55,232/- were received during the Financial Year 2015-16 out of which an amount of Rs.45,50,357/- was received in cash which has been recorded in the books of accounts and no other amounts was received. This discrepancy was pointed out on the basis

of information from insight portal as made available to the assesse.

6. We find that thereafter in the assessment order it is recorded that the reply of the assesse to notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was perused and

P age | 4 ITA No.1622/Del/2026 Zolijns Designs Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17)

examined and thereafter the proceedings were dropped on 11.04.2023 after taking prior approval of the specified authority as the case of assesse was covered under the provisions of Explanation 2 sub-clause (iv) of Section