DCIT, CC-4, NEW DELHI vs. MG HOUSING PVT LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2037/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2025AY 2015-16Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)15 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut it, as required by Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 11,75,00,000/- under Section 68 on account of share capital and premium received from various companies, doubting their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, admitting additional evidence without confronting the AO. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly followed Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules when admitting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv, Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Hearing: 13.03.2025Pronounced: 04.06.2025

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the ld.

CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 14.06.2021 for A.Y 2015-16. [A.Y. 2015-16] Dy. CIT Vs. MG Housing Pvt Ltd

2.

The grievances of the Revenue read as under:

The Id. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of share capital and premium received from M/s SGS Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ignoring the factual findings of AO regarding the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transaction.

1.

2 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in admitting the ad

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →