VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED (MERGED WITH M/S NAYMAL REALTORS PVT. LTD.),DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the remaining credits, including Rs 36,00,000 from Tapasya Hotels and Resorts Ltd and Rs 80,12,772 as closing bank balance, were adequately explained. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in investments, had credits of Rs 26,99,94,100 in its bank account. The Assessing Officer accepted the nature and source of credits to the extent of Rs 26,32,57,892.
What were the issues?
Whether the credits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained and liable for addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4527/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vatsal Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, (merged with M/s. Naymal Central Circle-29, Realtors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Hamilton House, 1st Floor, A- Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCV8920B
Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 29/06/2026
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.4527/Del/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 23.05.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147/143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
The Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is challenging the addition made in the sum of Rs 1,14,96,208/- on account of credit in the bank account treating the same as unexplained by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Page | 1
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The original return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 29-09-2011 declaring total income of Rs 1,052. The assessee company is engaged in the business of making investments in shares of group companies and is a core investment company. The Learned AO, based on information received from Investigation Wing, alleging that credits amounting to Rs. 26,99,94,100 were found in the bank account maintained with Yes Bank in the name of the assessee company, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 27-04-2018, declaring the same total income of Rs. 1,052. Vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 19-12-2018, the assessee was confronted to explain the nature and source of credits appearing in the bank account maintained with Yes Bank. In response thereto, the assessee furnished complete explanation while vide reply dated 22-12-2018, which are placed in pages 28-35 along with supporting documentary evidences. The assessee furnished a chart showing details of funds credited and further invested in the sum of Rs. 26,68,57,892 out of which, the Learned AO duly accepted the nature and source of credit to the extent of Rs. 26,32,57,892. The assessee furnished a copy of bank statements. With regard to the difference of Rs 36,00,000 (26,68,57,892 – 26,32,57,892), the assessee stated that the said sum was received from Tapasya Hotels and Resorts Ltd (formerly known as ACCIL Hospitality) and furnished the documents enclosing the audited financial statements of the said company for assessment year 2011-12 together with the bank statements for assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12 and copy of scrutiny assessment order for assessment year 2011-12, framed under Section 153A of the Act dated 29-12-2017. Similarly the assessee also furnished the documents pertaining to ACCIL Corporation (formerly known as Benzer Agencies) for explaining the credit of Rs. 80 lakhs by enclosing the audited financial statements for assessment year 2011-12, bank statements for assessment year 2011-12 and assessment order for assessment year 2011-12 framed under Section 153A of the Act dated 28-12-2017. It was stated that assessee had received an amount of Rs 1,00,00,000 on 26-2- 2010 from ACCIL Hospitality and Rs 36,00,000 represent repayment made in respect of that loan. The Learned AO however incorrectly allowed less relief by Rs 36,00,000 while accepting the nature and source of credits for Rs 26,32, 57,892. We find that the total bank statements of the assessee are enclosed in pages 38 to 41 of the Paper Book. From the same, it is found that the total credits thereon are Rs 27,47,54,100 and opening balance as on 1-4-2010 was Rs 1,16,564. Hence the total credits including opening balance was Rs 27,48,70,664. Out of this, the Learned AO accepted the nature and source of credit to the tune of Rs 26,32,57,892 leaving a balance of Rs 1,16,12,772. This includes a sum of Rs 36,00,000 representing transactions of Tapasya Hotels and Resorts Ltd as explained supra. The remaining sum of Rs 80,12,772 represent closing bank balance as on 31-3-2011. Hence we hold that the entire credits in the Yes Bank Account stood properly explained by the assessee and no part of it remains unexplained. Hence the addition made under section 68 of the Act by the Learned AO in the sum of Rs 1,14,96,208 is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Since the relief is granted to the assessee on merits, the adjudication of other legal grounds become academic in nature and they are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29/06/2026.
-Sd/- -Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29/06/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026