ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BIJWASAN REALTY ONE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6966/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2019-206 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 Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all relevant evidence regarding the identity of the creditors, who were non-banking financial companies. The fact that these loans were repaid was also considered significant. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income for AY 2016-17 and 2019-20, doubting unsecured loans and interest payments received from non-banking finance companies. The assessee had received substantial loans from entities like M/s K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., M/s Lenient Consultant Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Upaj Leasing & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loans and interest payments received from non-banking finance companies were genuine, and if the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: CA Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Adv, Ms. Yashi Garg, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals and cross objection preferred by the revenue and Assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: -

ITA No. & Ld. FAA who Appeal No. & Date of order AO who passed the AY passed the appellate of the Ld. FAA assessment order & order Date of order 6965/D/25 CIT(A)-29 Appeal No.: NFAC/2015- ITO, Ward 5(1) 2016-17 New Delhi 16/10368374 Delhi Dated: 16.07.2025 Dated 30.03.2024 6966/D/25 CIT(A)-29 Appeal No.: NFAC/2018- ITO, Ward 5(1) 2019-20 New Delhi 19/10368378 Delhi Dated 29.03.2024

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6965 & 6966/Del/2025 & C.O. Nos. 148 & 149/Del/2026 Bijwasan Realty One Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2019-20) 2. On hearing both sides we find that assessing officer had made additions in the two years involved before us on the basis of doubting the unsecured loans received by the assesse from 4 non-banking finance companies which were allegedly involved in providing accommodation entries. In AY: 2016-17 assesse had received a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and loan of Rs.2,25,00,000/- from M/s Lenient Consultant Pvt. Ltd. and loan of Rs.3,50,00,000/- from M/s Upaj Leasing & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Then in AY: 2019-20 loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- were received from Lenient Consultant Pvt. Ltd. These loans and payment of interest were doubted by the assessing officer and accordingly addition of Rs.2,51,71,335/- was made. In AY: 2019-20 on account of interest expenditure which have been treated as bogus expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The assessing officer had made addition of Rs.8,75,00,000/- in AY: 2016-17 on account of the loans received from M/s Lenient Consultant Pvt. Ltd., M/s Upaj Leasing & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act and the interest was also disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The same have been deleted by ld. CIT(A) for which department is in appeal and for completeness we reproduce the grounds raised in two appeals before us;

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 6965 & 6966/Del/2025 & C.O. Nos. 148 & 149/Del/2026 Bijwasan Realty One Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2019-20) ITA No.6965/Del/2025 AY: 2016-17

“a. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the subject Mr. Himanshu Verma and Sh. Deepak Agarwal and Sh. Ankit Bhagaria are only entry provider and willfully involved in the syndicate for organized accommodation entries through there associated entities since long ago despite of many search proceedings conducted on them, hence, these entities are habitually involved in the racket without any fear of Law in force. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the Non-descript entities involved with Sh. Deepak Agarwal, Mr. Himanshu Verma and Sh. Ankit Bhagaria give 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 banks as well as books of accounts in respective entities. c. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the existence of these entities as well as genuine business activities at the address could not be established. d. The Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT has upheld/ confirmed that these entities are accommodation entry operator. e. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. f. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. g. That the appellant craves to add, amend, after or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

ITA No.6966/Del/2025 AY: 2019-20

“a. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the subject Sh. Deepak Agarwal and Sh. Ankit Bhagaria are only entry provider and willfully involved in the syndicate for organized accommodation entries through there associated entities since long ago despite of many search proceedings conducted on them, hence, these entities are habitually involved in the racket without any fear of Law in force. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the Non-descript entities involved with Sh. Deepak Agarwal, and Sh. Ankit Bhagaria give 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

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 6965 & 6966/Del/2025 & C.O. Nos. 148 & 149/Del/2026 Bijwasan Realty One Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2019-20) of bank accounts in different banks as well as books of accounts in respective entities. c. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the existence of these entities as well as genuine business activities at the address could not be established. d. The Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT has upheld/ confirmed that these entities are accommodation entry operator. e. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. f. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. g. That the appellant craves to add, amend, after or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3.

Now, though ld. DR has relied the grounds raised which are argumentative in themselves. We find that what is material is that not only assesse had filed all the relevant evidences with regard to identity of creditors but the matter of fact remains that lenders were non-banking financial companies in regard to whom there is no material on record to show that any of the statutory bodies regulating their functions had made any adverse observations. Ld. Counsel has demonstrated before us that the loans were repaid to the NBFC and that same has major bearing on the issue and thereby relying Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 63 taxmann.com 333 (Delhi), Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.8,57,00,000/- in AY: 2016-17 and relied Coordinate Bench decision in Real Innerspring Technologies (P) Ltd.

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 6965 & 6966/Del/2025 & C.O. Nos. 148 & 149/Del/2026 Bijwasan Realty One Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2016-17 & 2019-20) Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) to delete the addition made u/s 69C in AY: 2019- 20.

4.

Thus, we find no substance in the ground raised by the department. The appeals of the department deserves to be dismissed. The corresponding Cross Objections are rendered infructous and accordingly, dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S Rifaur Rahman) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 08.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →