ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMES LTD., NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “जी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
ŵी एम. बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िदʟी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)
ITA Nos. 570, 571 & 41 /DEL/2017 (A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)
आअसं. 1054 /िदʟी/2020 (िन.व. 2009-10)
Thapar Homes Ltd.,
C/O Bhupesh K. Dhingra & Co.
Chartered Accountants, 604, Padma Tower-II,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008
PAN No: AACCT-3106-F

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-15, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi 110055

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
आअसं. 1142, 1141 & 548 /िदʟी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)
ITA Nos. 1142, 1141 & 548 /DEL/2017 (A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-15, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi 110055

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant

बनाम Vs.

Thapar Homes Ltd.,
C/O Bhupesh K. Dhingra & Co.
Chartered Accountants, 604, Padma Tower-II,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008
PAN No: AACCT-3106-F

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

Assessee by : S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &

Ms. Shrawani Advocates
Department by : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
22/05/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
19/08/2025
आदेश/ORDER

PER BENCH:

These bunch of seven appeals emanate from search conducted at the premises of assessee on 20.10.2008. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are similar, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order.

For the sake convenience, the appeals are taken up for adjudication in seriatim of assessment year.
ITA No. 1142/Del/2017 and 570/Del/2017 for AY 2006-07
3. The Revenue in this appeal has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 05.12.2016 for AY 2006-07. The gist of grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal is as under:-
 Against deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’);
 Against deleting the addition of Rs.13,00,000/- made on account unaccounted expenses u/s. 69C of the Act;
 Against deleting the addition of Rs.6,35,000/- on account of income from unexplained sources;
 Against deleting the addition of Rs.2,15,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act;

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

 Against deleting the addition of Rs. 15,639/- on account of unexplained expenses; &
 Against deleting the addition of Rs.7,26,250/- on account of unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
4. Shri Vikas Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted that the search action was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 20.10.2008, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 13.11.2009. On date of search there was no pending assessment for AY 2006-07. Thus, this is a year of unabated assessment. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2009
declaring income of Rs. 6,63,439/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) without there being any incriminating material made various additions and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,48,40,328/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated
31.12.2010 passed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia assailing additions on merits as well as raising legal ground. The CIT(A) vide impugned order deleted all the additions on merits but rejected assessee’s plea on legal issue. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the First Appellate Authority. The ld. Counsel pointed that the CIT(A) while deleting additions has examined the facts and documents placed on record by the assessee, and thereafter on merits deleted the additions. The assessee not only has good case on merits but on legal issue as well, i.e. no addition can be made in the year of unabated assessment in absence of any incriminating material found and seized during search. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., 454 ITR 212 (SC).

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

Therefore, the same is an unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Therefore, the same is added to the assessee's income. As the assessee has concealed income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.”
A bare perusal of the reasons given by the AO for making addition show that there is no reference to any incriminating material while making the addition. It is no more res integra that in the year of completed assessments on the date of search, no addition can be made if no incriminating material is found during the course of search. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell
P. Ltd. (supra) in an explicit and unambiguous manner has explained this principle.
Therefore, the addition is unsustainable in light of settled legal position. In any case, the assessee has succeeded before the First Appellate Authority on merits of the additions. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition.
Accordingly, ground no. 3 of appeal is dismissed.
(ii)
Addition on account of unaccounted expenses of Rs.13,00,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act:-
The AO had made aforesaid additions for the following reasons:
“3. The assessee has declared income of Rs.19,35,000/-. This sum includes construction fee of Rs.13,00,000/- from Mr. B.K. Dhingra. However, no details have been provided about the nature of the construction fee and the manner in which goods/services have been provided. In the P&L account there are no purchases of raw materials & design fee expenses of Rs.17,333/- is only claimed. Sh. B.K. Dhingra a share holder & director of the company and his cases is also assessed to tax in this circle. In his individual return he has claimed to have paid Rs. 13,00,000/- for construction expenses carried on by M/s Thapar Homes Ltd. on farm house at Sultan
Pur. Therefore, it is clear that the sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is not a fee but is a receipt for construction expenses. As the assessee has not declared any cost related expenses the sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- is treated as income from unexplained sources u/s 68 of 6

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) the Act and a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- is added u/s 69C of the Act as unaccounted expenses on construction materials on the assumption there the company would not be making a profit from dealing with its own promoters/directors/shareholders.”
A plain reading of the reasons given by the AO for making addition shows that there is no reference to any incriminating material. As mentioned above, in the absence of any incriminating material, in the year of unabated assessment, no addition can be made. For the reason explained in para (i) above, we find no merit in ground no. 4 of appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed.
(iii)
Addition on account of income from unexplained sources Rs.6,35,000/- :-

The AO made aforesaid addition by observing as under:-
“4. The assessee has also declared a sum of Rs.6,35,000/- as profit on cancellation of deal from M/s Mudhusudan Fibre Goods Pvt. Ltd. This company is also assessed with this circle and in its case the expense of Rs.6,35,000/- has been disallowed as not incurred for business purposes. In the case of M/s Thapar Homes Ltd. also the assessee is not been able to produce any agreement/document evidencing any business activities which led to receipt of sum of Rs.6,35,000/-. Also the calculation of this amount is not with the assessee. Therefore, this amount of Rs.6,35,000/- is treated as income from unexplained sources u/s 68.”
The addition has been by the AO without reference to any incriminating material found and seized during search action u/s. 132 of the Act. It is a year of unabated assessment. The CIT(A) has deleted the said addition on merits. The said addition is unsustainable as there is no reference to any incriminating material while making addition by the AO. The issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). Hence, ground no. 5 of appeal is dismissed.

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

(iv)
Addition on account of unexplained cash credit Rs.2,15,00,000/-u/s. 68 of the Act:-
The AO has made addition of aforesaid amount by observing as under:-
“5. As per annexure A-3 page 136 party 0-1 in the ledger account of J.P. Gupta the assessee has shown that cheque no. 311309 of Rs.2,15,00,000/- was issued on 11/10/2005. While checking the bank statement it was found that an amount of Rs.1,90,00,000/- was paid to M/s Bodhi Properties Pvt. Ltd. vide the said cheque number 311309. This is unexplained cash credit us 68 and an amount of Rs.
2,15,00,000/- is added to the assessee's income. As the assessee has concealed income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.”
The AO has made aforesaid addition after referring to alleged incriminating material Annexure A3 page 136 party O-1. A perusal of Annexure A3 page 136
(supra) shows that it is a ledger account of J.P Gupta in the books of assessee. During
First Appellate proceedings, the assessee had explained that the company had paid
Rs.2,40,00,000/- to Shri J.P Gupta for the purchase of property bearing no. 3/35
Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. The details of the payment made are as under:-
Date
Particulars
Amount (Rs.)
07.10.2005
Ch.
No.
311303
from Corporation Bank
25,00,000,.00
11.10.2005
Ch.
No.
311309
from Corporation
Bank, paid to Bodhi Properties P Ltd to make payment To Sh. J.P Gupta on behalf of the company
1,90,00,000.00
11.10.2005
Being amount paid by Bodhi
Properties P. Ltd. for on behalf of Thapar Homes Ltd.

25,00,000.00

Total
2,40,00,00.00

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

It was further explained that since the deal could not be materialized, therefore, aforesaid amount was received back during subsequent assessment year.
The assessee filed confirmations from Shri J P Gupta and also furnished copy of accounts, bank statement and audited Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2006 and Tax Audit
Report for AY 2006-07 of Bodhi properties P. Ltd. The CIT(A) after examining the documents deleting the addition by observing as under:-
“Further, M/s. Bodhi Properties Pvt. Ltd. has also been assessed by the same AO u/s.
153A/143(3) and the transaction of Rs. 2.15 Cr. in respect of the payment made to Shri J. P. Gupta for and on behalf of the appellant company stood accepted as genuine and correct in its assessment order dated 31.12.2010. Keeping in view, the fact of the case as discussed hereinabove there is no logic for making addition of Rs.
2.15 Cr. in the hands of the appellant company. Therefore, the addition of Rs.2,15,00,000/- made by AO is directed to be deleted.”
We concur with findings of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition. Hence, ground no. 6 of appeal is dismissed.
(v)
Addition on account of unexplained expenses of Rs.15,639/:-
The AO has made aforesaid addition for the following reasons:
“6. In reply to question no.26 of the questionnaire the assessee stated that no employment was made during the year. However, in annexure L of the balance sheet under the head Administrative & Other Expenses. The assessee has claimed (a) staff welfare Rs.11,284/- (b) Security Expenses Rs.4,355/-Total Rs. 15,639/-. As the assessee has made no employment therefore, the amount of Rs. 15,639/- is disallowed as unexplained expenditure and added to the assessee's income. As the assessee has concealed income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.”

A bare reading of reasons given by the AO show that there is no reference to any incriminating material, hence, in the absence of any incriminating material no 9

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) addition can be made in the year of unabated assessment. The CIT(A) has deleted the said addition after considering merits. We find no infirmity in the findings of CIT(A).
Hence, ground no. 7 of appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(vi)
Addition on account of unexplained credit Rs.7,26,250/- u/s. 68 of the Act:-
The AO has made addition of aforesaid addition by observing as under:-
“7. In Annexure A-21, Page No.78 and 79 seized from the premises of 604,
Padama Tower-II, Rajinder Palace, Delhi. The advances received against property from M/s Prime IT Solution Pvt. Ltd. for property at Greater Nodia stands at Rs.55,00,000/- where as the assessee in the balance sheet has shown Rs. 47,73,750/-.
Difference is Rs. 7,26,250/-. The assessee was unable to explain. Hence, the amount of Rs.7,26,250/- is treated as an un explained cash credit u/s 68 and it is added to the assessee's income. As the assessee has concealed income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.”
The AO has made addition after referring to alleged incriminating material
Annexure A-21 page no. 78 and 79 seized from the premises of assessee company.
The CIT(A) has deleted the addition for the following reasons:-
“I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of the additions made by the AO in the assessment order, the arguments of the AR and evidences filed by the appellant company during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. It is seen from the assessment order that an addition of Rs.7,26,250/- had been made u/s 68 on account of difference in account balance of advance received from M/s Prime IT Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. and as shown in books of accounts of the appellant company. Perusal of the records shows that the appellant company had given Rs. 80,00,000/- to 'Prime IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: B-33, Shivalik, New Delhi-110017, having PAN:
AADCP5888P, details as under.-
Date
Particulars
Amount (Rs.)
29.12.2005
Cheque No. 236416 drawn 50,00,000.00

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) on Corporation Bank
29.12.2005
Cheque No. 236418 drawn on Corporation Bank
25,00,000.00
01.01.2006
Cheque No. 236420 drawn on Corporation Bank
5,00,000.00

Total (Rs.)
80,00,000.00
In addition the appellant company received Rs.7,26,250/- vide Cheque No.163362
dated 24.01.06 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, from M/s Prime
Infoways Pvt. Ltd., Rega. Office.B-33, Shivalik, New Delhi-17 PAN : AADCP5889N, which is a sister concern of 'M/s Prime IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. having common directors and shareholders and same address. The amount of Rs.7,26,250/- so received was credited to the A/c of the 'Prime IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'" instead of 'Prime Infoways
Pvt. Ltd. The appellant company filed (a). Confirmed copy of account of'Prime IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (b). Confirmed copy of account of Prime Infoways Pvt. Ltd. (C).
copy of Bank Statement of Prime Infoways Pvt. Ltd. and (d). copy of Audited Balance
Sheet as on 31.03.2006 of 'Prime Infoways Pvt. Ltd.' Perusal of bank statement of Prime Infoways Pvt. Ltd. with Syndicate Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi reflects the debit of Rs. 7,26,250/- on 27.01.2006 vide cheque no. 163383 in favour of Thapar
Homes Limited. It is also pertinent to note that M/s Prime IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Prime Infoways Pvt. Ltd. have also been assessed u/s. 143(3) by the same AO vide assessment orders dated 31.12.2010. Therefore, in my considered view the assessee has fully discharged its onus as mandated on it u/S. 68. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.7,26,250/- made by AO is directed to be deleted.”
No controverting material has been placed before us to show infirmity in findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the same is upheld and ground no. 8 of appeal is dismissed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee made statement at Bar that the assessee is not pressing appeal for AY 2006-07. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for AY
2006-07 in ITA No. 570/Del/2017 is dismissed as not pressed.

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

ITA no. 1141/Del/2017 and ITA No. 571/Del/2017 for AY 2007-08
9. The cross appeals by the Revenue and assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 05.12.2016 for AY 2007-08. The Revenue in appeal has assailed the impugned order on following grounds:-
1. On the facts & Circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee without independently verifying the facts of the case, being a fact finding authority as mandated by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs
Jansampark Advertising.
2. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,16,00,000/-made by AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,67,149/-made by AO on account of Foreign travel expenses disallowed
4. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,10,000/-made by AO on account of income from unexplained credit u/s 68. 5. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000/-made by AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 6. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,29,00,000/-made by AO on account of suppressed value of sale consideration.
7. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,38,125/-made by AO on account of unexplained investment.
8. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,29,056/-made by AO on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 35D.

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) assessee. Since, there is no incriminating material for making the addition, the addition is squarely covered by the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell
P. Ltd. (supra).
10.3. In respect of ground of appeal no. 7 relating to unexplained investment u/s.
69A of the Act based on Annexure A-8 page no 72 Party O-1, the ld. counsel for assessee submitted that the said addition by the AO was made based on Agreement to sell between the parties i.e. Om Prakash/Attar Singh/Ishwar Singh/Jai Bhagwan on the one side and M/s. Apex Buildwell P. Ltd. on the other. The assessee is not party to the said agreement. He placed on record a copy of said Agreement to sell at pages
2 to 5 of the paper book.
11. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly placing reliance on the assessment order prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) deleting the additions.
12. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The primary contention of the assessee is that the additions have been made without any reference to any incriminating material/document found during the course of search.
We find that the similar argument was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) during First Appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) rejected the above contention of assessee and examined each addition on merits.
13. The Revenue in Ground no. 2 of appeal has assailed addition of Rs.3,16,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The addition was made by the AO as the assessee had allegedly failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of the following four parties from whom the assesee had taken loans:

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

(i) P P Rewari

Rs. 12,00,000/-
(ii) M/s. Gagan Education Society
Rs.84,00,000/-
(iii) Sachdeva Buildcon P Ltd.

Rs.2,00,00,000/-
(iv) M/s. Print Infomatics P Ltd.

Rs.20,00,000/-
Total
Rs.3,16,00,000/-
14. The assessee had furnished complete details of the aforesaid parties including copies of accounts, complete address, PAN details and confirmations before the AO vide letter dated 24.12.2010. The AO never made any attempt to verify details from the respective parties. The CIT(A) after examining the details furnished by the assessee deleted the additions. It is pertinent to mention here that while making said addition, AO has not referred to any incriminating material. This being the year where no assessment was pending, the said addition is liable to be deleted in light of decision rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A) has examined the transaction on merits and has found that the assessee has discharged its onus in complying with the provisions of section 68 of the Act.
Therefore, ground no. 2 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed sans merit.
15. In ground no. 3 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed deleting of addition of Rs.24,67,149/-. The said expenditure was purportedly incurred by the assessee towards foreign and domestic travels of the directors in connection with business.
The AO disallowed the expenditure on the presumption that the travel is on account of pleasure or religious purpose, as on most of the trips husband, wife and children have travelled together. In the first instance, we find that the said addition is not based on any incriminating material. Secondly, the addition has been deleted by the CIT(A) on merits holding that the expenditure was on account of business exigencies

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) and even if there was some element of personal travel, expenses incurred vis a vis the directors the same should have been taxed in the hands of the directors as perquisite u/s. 28(1)(iv) of the Act. We are of considered view that the said addition is unsustainable as the addition has been made without any reference to the incriminating material in the year of unabated assessment. Secondly, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition on merits. The Revenue has not been able to controvert findings of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Thus, in light of above facts, ground no. 3 of appeal is dismissed.
16. The next addition of Rs.6,10,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act is in respect of unexplained credits. The AO while making the addition has referred to the seized documents i.e. pen drive no. 1 annexure A-13. We have examined the said document at page no. 1 of the paper book filed by the assessee. A bare perusal of the document shows that it is undated and unsigned. On the face of it the document appears to be a dumb document. Hence, no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document. The ground no. 4 of appeal is dismissed, being without any merit.
17. In ground no. 5 of appeal, Revenue has assailed deleting of addition
Rs.50,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash credit. The said addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material Annexure A-6 page no. 1 to 14
referring to one collaboration agreement dated 30.09.2006. The said agreement is placed on record at pages 6 to 19 of the paper book. A perusal of the agreement shows that the same has been entered into between Shri Aneesh Chander Diwan and the assessee for redevelopment/reconstruction of property i.e. residential plot bearing no. 36, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. From perusal of said agreement it emanates that the assessee has made payment of Rs.50,000/- on 16

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10)

Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) the addition of Rs. 13.50 crore only on surmises without any information or material to support his guess. The transactions of sales of above said properties stood entered in books of accounts which were seized during the search operations. The appellant company relied on section 292C and 132(4A) of the act. The Onus was on the AO to bring on record some acceptable evidence to prove that what was stated in books of accounts did not depict actual state of affairs. If the AO was not satisfied about the correctness of the sale deed he should have made enquries from the buyers of the above said flats. In my considered view the basement of a residential building cannot fetch sale price equivalent to sale price of the normal floor because the same as per
MCD bye laws is required to be used for domestic storage purposes only. It has been held in number of judicial pronouncements that the sale consideration as recorded in the registered document can be disturbed only on the basis of the evidence and not on the basis of presumptions. It is also important to note that the Sub-