ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI vs. INTERNATIONAL GREEN SCAPES LIMITED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1229/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 July 2026AY 2018-193 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the amount was an opening balance and not a fresh cash credit in the current year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had the liberty to reopen the prior year if permissible.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,92,27,098/- under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits. The assessee contended that this amount was an opening balance of a loan taken in a prior financial year, and no new loan was received in the current assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the opening balance of a loan from a prior year can be treated as an unexplained cash credit in the current assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1229/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs International Green Scapes Tax Limited Central Circle-25, B-16, 1st Floor, South ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Extension, 1ST Andrewsganj Delhi-55 Shahpur Jat, Delhi- 110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACI0600F

Assessee by: Sh. Pawan Chikara, CA Revenue by : Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR

Date of Hearing: 06.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 06.07.2026 ORDER This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-29 (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), New Delhi’s order dated 08.10.2025, passed in case no. 10807/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action making section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs. 2,92,27,098/- in the assessee’s hands; reading as under:

2 “10. Ground Nos. 5 & 6: The appellant vides these grounds challenged the additions made by AO u/s 68 and 69C. I have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal, additional evidence and written submission filed by the appellant. I have also considered the remand report submitted by AO and rejoinder filed by the appellant. It is found that the appellant received and repaid loans through regular banking channels, as verified by comprehensive bank statements. Interest on loans is supported by TDS certificates, and confirmations from M/s Moulik Trading Enterprises Ltd. are filed for all relevant years i.e. from F.Y. 2014-15 to F.Y. 2016-17. Admission of additional evidence is fully justified; reasons for non-filing during assessment are bona fide and supported by affidavit. The AO's remand report lacks substantive refutation of the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant. I am not going in creditworthiness and identity of lender nor I am going in the genuineness of the transactions. The factum of the case is addition of Rs. 2,92,27,098/ u/s 68 in the instant assessment year. The appellant contended that the appellant company has taken unsecured loan of Rs 4,50,00,000/ from M/s Moulik Trading enterprises Ltd. during the F.Y. 2014 15 (Α.Υ. 2015-16). The appellant further contended that during the F.Y. 2017-18 (this assessment year), no loan was received by appellant rather Rs. 45,00,000/- was repaid. The Rs. 2,92,27,098/- which was added u/s 68 by AO was actually the opening balance as on 01.04.2017. Since no loan was received in A.Y. 2018-19 from M/s Moulik Trading Enterprises Ltd. the addition made by AO is illegal. The perusal of ledger account of maintained by M/s Moulik Trading Enterprises Ltd. clearly shows that Rs. 2,92,27,098/- of Moulik enterprises. Therefore, the addition made by Ad u/s 68 18 S is not

sustainable and deleted. Since the appellant has not taken any loan during the year, the presumptive expenditure of commission does not arise. The AO was factually wrong treating opening balance as cash credit in this assessment year.

10.1 Accordingly, the additions made u/s 68 are directed to be deleted, Since addition under 68 does not survive the consequential presumptive expenditure of commission also does not survive. Both the grounds of appeal are allowed. The AO is at liberty to reopen the case for A.Y. 2015-16, if permissible in the act to examine the genuineness of the loan taken by the appellant. The grounds of appeal succeed on merits, and the appeal is allowed. 11. Since the appeal is allowed on merit of the case other grounds became academic in nature hence not adjudicated. 12. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby allowed.”

3 3. That being the case, there is no specific denial coming from the revenue side in its pleadings substantive grounds raised herein that the assessee had received the impugned loans from M/s Moulik Traders Enterprises Limited during financial year 2017-18 which could lead us to interfere in the learned CIT(A) above extracted very well reasoned detailed discussion.

4.

We further wish to reiterate here that the learned Assessing Officer has already been granted opportunity to take recourse to initiation of reopening in the assessee’s case in assessment year 2016-17 as well (supra). We accordingly uphold the learned CIT(A) action deleting the impugned addition made in assessment year 2018-19 in the assessee’s hands. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.07.2026 *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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →