AKRITI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVARTE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3648/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on the sole reason for reopening, the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law and were quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information that the assessee provided fictitious share application money. However, the additions made in the assessment orders did not relate to this specific reason for reopening.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings when the additions made did not correspond to the reasons recorded for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3647 & 3648/Del/2026; Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15

Akriti Financial Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of D-38, South Extension Part-1, Income Tax, New Delhi- 110065 Central Circle- 2, New CGO Compled, NHIV Faridabad- 121001 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCA5455H

Assessee by: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2026

ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3647 & 3648/De/2026, for Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3 (for short, “CIT(A)”), Gurgaon’s as many orders dated 24.03.2026 & 16.03.2026, passed in order nos. 1025593/NFAC/2012-13 & 10256438/NFAC/2013-14, involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2 2. The assessee submits at the outset that it seeks to raise/press for its first and foremost legal ground/argument challenging validity of the impugned twin identical re-openings itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion the same after recording his reasons to believe that going by the relevant material detected in the survey action held on 20.08.2019, it was found to have provided fictitious share application money to/from M/s Rakesh Raj and Associates representing accommodation entry(ies) of Rs. 1,43,32,000/- (A.Y. 2013-14) & Rs. 1,78,57,125/- (A.Y. 2014-15); respectively. Mr. Somil Agarwal next takes us to the learned Assessing Officer’s as many assessments; both framed on 26.05.2023 wherein although he has added the corresponding amounts of Rs. 1,66,32,000/- & Rs. 1,75,57,025/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act, the same admittedly do not involve the aforesaid reopening amounts i.e. fictitious shar application money in case of Rakesh Raj and Associates . This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side when afforded adequate opportunity of being heard today.

3.

Faced with this situation, we hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del), PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) & CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023) 148 taxmann.com 125 (Cal) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition in all these assessment years in the

3 assessee’s hands qua aforesaid sole identical reason of reopening, the same could not be held as sustainable in eyes of law. Quashed in very terms therefore. All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

4.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3647 & 3648/De/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →