INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8670/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 September 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adequately dealt with the facts and appropriately deleted the additions. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 41,20,000 and Rs. 2,23,75,000 under Section 68 for unexplained purchases of immovable property. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who deleted both additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting additions made under Section 68 for unexplained property purchases, despite the AO's findings of inadequate evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Surbendu Thakur, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026

ITA No.8670/DEL/2025 ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8670/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, Vs. ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED, Income Tax Office, House No.551/1, Khasra No.278, Room No.381, C.R. Building, Village Saidulajab Extension, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi 110068. Delhi 110002. PAN No.AAHCA5334P Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Surbendu Thakur, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement on 16.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 06.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 The assessee’s case was reopened through issuance of notice u/s 148, dated 31.03.2019. The reopening was done for verification for purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.41,20,000/-. Thereafter, the AO has recorded that the transactions standing in the name of the assessee were not duly explained and hence he added Rs.41,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO also made another addition of Rs.223,75,000/- on account of a property purchased for which, again, adequate details were not filed before the Ld. AO.

ITA No.8670/DEL/2025 ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED 1.2 The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he could succeed entirely with both the additions being deleted on the basis of findings given on pages 20 to 23 of the impugned order.

1.3 Aggrieved with this order the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

1.

“Whether on the facts and circumstances as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of Rs.41,20,000/-; 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of Rs.41,20,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee had purchased property and not able to explain the source of same during the assessment proceedings. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of Rs.2,23,75,000/-. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of Rs.2,23,75,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the funds utilized by the assessee for the purchase of property during the assessment proceedings. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Before us the Ld. DR took us through the finding recorded in the assessment order and argued that while the Ld. AO has given a finding in detail regarding the inadequacy of evidences filed before him, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the same set of facts and has found the evidence to be adequate for granting relief.

ITA No.8670/DEL/2025 ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED 2.1 The Ld. AR relied on the findings given in the impugned order.

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given the following finding on the impugned additions:

“6.2 The appellant states that in the reply dated 14.11.2019, the appellant had attached a copy of account of Mr. Bhüllan Prasad and clarified that it had paid Rs.36,50,000/- only and not Rs.41,20,000/- The appellant has furnished a copy of this account, from which it is seen that three cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each were issued to Mr. Bhullan Prasad on 17/08/2009 (FY 2009-10) and a cheque of Rs. 6,50,000/- was issued on 2/9/2009. The appellant has also uploaded a copy of the registered sale deed, as per which the registration has been done on 02/08/2011, for a sale consideration of Rs.36,50,000/- and the market value is Rs.41,20,000/- The cheques issued in FY 2009-10 are duly recorded in this registration deed. The source of payments made for the property have also been provided, in the form of loans from Shri Anurag Kushwaha and Dwiti Construction P. Ltd. Though the market value of the property is Rs.41,20,000/-, the actual fund investment is only Rs.36,50,000/-Moreover, these funds were clearly invested in FY 2009-10 and not in the present FY. Hence, no adverse inference regarding source of funds, if any, can be taken in the present FY. Further, since this is a case of property purchase, section 50C/43CA is not applicable. The provisions of section 56(2)(x) also do not apply for the current FY. Hence there is no justification for the addition u/s 68 of Rs.41,20,000/- and the same is hereby deleted. 6.3 The next specific ground is regarding the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,23,75,000/- The AO noted that the appellant had purchased a property for Rs.2,23,75,000/- The source of investment was stated to be loans from various entities. The AO issued notices u/s 133(6) and notes that "some of the letters received back in this office and some confirmations are received in this office. It is found that transaction of the giver and receivers are not matching each other in the bank account of both". The AO was therefore not satisfied with the details provided by the appellant and stated that neither has the appellant shown this property in his ITR nor established his credit worthiness to buy the property. The AO thus taxed the sum of Rs.2,23,75,000/- u/s 68. 6.4 The appellant has stated that the purchase of aforesaid property was duly recorded in the books. The ledger account of the purchase has been produced and is reproduced below for ease of reference: 3

ITA No.8670/DEL/2025 ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED ……………. Payment of Rs.2,05,00,000/- is made through cheques drawn on Bank of India and a cash payment of Rs.10,00,000/- has also been made. The details match the payment details given in the registered sale deed, which has also been produced. The cash has been withdrawn from the same Bank of India account from which cheques have been issued, as seen from the cash book. The account in question is account no. 690220110000240. The source has been explained through loan from parties, who have duly filed confirmations and also submitted copies of their ITRs and bank account statements. The same have been perused. The AO has not listed the parties from whom replies to notices u/s 133(6) were not received by him. Further, though he has referred to details not matching between givers and receivers, specifics of mismatch have not been pointed out or noted in the order. 6.5 I have examined the confirmations produced before me. I have also perused the bank account statements of the appellant and the loan givers and no specific discrepancy or mismatch has come to notice. The debits in the bank accounts of the lenders are appearing as credits in the bank account of the appellant. Hence, in the absence of any specific finding by the Assessing officer as to which parties did not respond and as to what mismatches were found by him, the initial onus cast upon the appellant stands discharged and there is no justification for making the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,23,75,000/-. The addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,23,75,000/- is hereby deleted.” 3.1 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adequately dealt with the facts of the case and has appropriately deleted the impugned additions. Accordingly, we deem it fit to support the order of Ld. CIT(A) and thereby dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.8670/DEL/2025 ASTEROID SHELTERS LIMITED Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →