ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI vs. BINDAL TRANSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1257/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2019-20] ACIT vs Bindal Transolutions Private Central Circle-25 Limited G-57, Opp. H.No.-66, Delhi East of Kailash, Delhi-110065 PAN No.AAECB3657R Appellant Respondent Cross objection No.109/Del/2026 (In ITA No.1257/Del/2026) [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Bindal Transolutions vs ACIT Private Limited G-57, Opp. Central Circle-25 H.No.-66, East of Kailash, Delhi Delhi-110065 PAN No.AAECB3657R Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA Date of Hearing 13.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M. Appeal in this case has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the PCIT

(Appeals)-31, New Delhi for the A.Y. 2019-20. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

a. The Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciated the fact that the finding, the assessee has taken bogus unsecured of 78,00,000/- from M/s Highrise Securities & Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20,00,000/- from M/s sirsa Deposit & Advace Ltd. during the year under consideration which are non-descript companies and has no genuine business. The entity is managed and controlled by Shri himambu Verma the entry operator. b. The Ld. CIT(A), did not appreciated the fact, that mere repayment of the said unsecured loans on before the search proceedings on the entities does not gives the legitimacy to the transaction c. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the findings, of search proceedings on the was operator, Shri Himanshu Verma, establishes that the assessee long with associated entities was indulged in accepting huge cash, out of books, booked bogus expenses, and taking bogus accommodation entries aggregating "routing the unexplained money in parallel black economy of entire Galaxy Group willingly to evade taxes as per the requirement of his beneficiaries. d. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the Non-descript entities involved with Sh. Himb Verma gives non genuine transaction, on account of accommodation entries in the form of bogus loan/purchase/sales, which were given /taken in so a sophisticated manner with taking care of each step to give the image of legal transaction by utilizing web of bank accounts in different tanks as well as books of accounts in respective entities. e. It is settled position that once the counter party is found to be a paper company with no real business. Banking channel payments cannot confer legitimacy on the transaction (CIT V. N.R. Portfolio P. Lal 263 CTR 456 (Del.). The CIT(A) erred in holding that repayment alone proves genuineness. On the contrary, repayment itself may be a circular movement of funds arranged to give colour of authenticity.

f. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that these entry provider have established a organized tax evasion racket and are working in such a large scale which is against the economic security of nation. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the existence of these entities at the address could not be established. h. The Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT has upheld/ confirmed that these entities are accommodation entry operator. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. j. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other, k. That the appellant craves to 3.3d, amend, after or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

“As per information on record, the assessee has taken bogus loan amounting to Rs. 16,57,533 and interest expenses of Rs. 1,49,178 from M/s Sisrsa Deposits & Advances Ltd. The assessee has also taken interest expenses of Rs. 6,30,223 from M/s Highrise Securities Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. In view of this, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued to assessee on 18.03.2023. The assessee filed the reply on 20.03.2023 and 27.03.2023. The assessee denied that it has not received loan and asked for detail related to the issue involved. The reply of assessee did not found to be tenable. So the case was reopened with the approval of competent authority and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023 to bring the escaped income of Rs. 24,36,934 under taxation. The assessee filed ITR in response to notice issued on same day of issuance, i.e. on 31.03.2023 at an income of Rs. 19,13,940.”

has been passed on the same facts on which first order u/s.148 of the Act was passed. No new information/ evidence brought on record. Accordingly, we find no reason to make any interference in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has quashed the order of the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, revenue’s appeal on this issue is dismissed.

Cross Objection 109/Del/2026 A.Y. 2019-20

“1. That ld Assessing Officer without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in reopening of the assessment on the same information and issue without any additional information and evidences against the appellant assessee for which assessment was reopened for reassessment by issuing the order u/s 148A(d) and notice under section 148 dated 31/03/2023 and alleged accommodation entry transaction was held to be genuine by Id Assessing Officer (NFAC) vide order dated 07/03/2024 wherein true and full disclosure was made by appellant assessee and thus reopening of assessment merely on change of opinion and against the provision of section 152(2) is bad in law and accordingly order so passed is liable to be held as null and void without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 1, Id Assessing Officer is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the casein reopening of the assessment for the information which was already been available with the id Assessing Officer before the completion of reassessment original proceedings and therefore reopening of assessment again against the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of Rasalika Trading & Investment Co. (p.) Ltd vs. DCIT [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 371 (Delhi) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore assessment order so passed should be quashed. Page | 5

3 Without prejudice to ground of appeal no.1 and 2 proceeding initiated by Id Assessing Officer without bringing any evidence of any indiscriminating seized documents found during the course of search proceedings in case of other person in spite of repeated request made and in absence of satisfaction note recorded by the assessing officer of other person and assessing officer of the appellant assessee that documents so seized pertains to the appellant assessee and requisitioned made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act as required in view of explanation 2 of section 148 is bad in law and accordingly assessment order so passed on the basis of invalid proceedings is liable to quashed. 4. Without prejudice to ground of appeal no 1 and 2 of the cross objection, Id CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the order passed by Id Assessing Officer as valid which was passed by Id Assessing Officer against the principal of natural justice without confronting any material and evidences against the assessee and without calling any person who has given any statement against the assessee for cross examination and thus order so passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5 Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 1 to 4m proceeding initiated u/s 148 which suffers from other various legal infirmities in view of provision of section 147 to 151 and other relevant provision of law is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6 The appellant assessee has every right to add, delete, modify and or alter any grounds of cross objection at the time of hearing.

new in the name of facts or evidences was brought on record by the AO. On this issue we have already quashed the order.

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi