INCOME TAX OFFICER, C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. INDSU ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE - II, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2367/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2026AY 2011-123 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no credit of Rs. 40,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account. Therefore, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked for a non-existent transaction.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged share application money. The AO believed the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction with a shell company.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of share application money was justified when the CIT(A) found no such credit in the assessee's bank account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Hearing: 19/05/2026Pronounced: 19/05/2026

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16.03.2024, for Assessment Year 2011-12 deleting addition of Rs.40,00,000/-, amount allegedly credited in the bank account of the assessee as share application money.

2.

Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department vehemently defending the assessment order submits that the assessee had received share application money

2 ITA No. 2367/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2011-12)

from M/s. Silverlake Traders P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) granted multiple opportunities to the assessee to prove genuineness of the said transaction. The assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to establish genuineness of the transaction. M/s. Silverlake Traders P. Ltd., is a shell company and provides accommodation entries in the form of share application money. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.40,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The ld. DR prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) and upholding assessment order.

3.

Per contra, Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently supporting the impugned order submits that there was no transaction relating to deposit of share application money Rs.40,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee during FY 2010-11. The CIT(A), after examining the documents on record and after examining the provisions of section 68 of the Act, threadbare deleted the addition. He thus prayed for dismissing appeal of the Revenue.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary issue in the instant appeal is with regard to genuineness of the transaction of amount Rs.40,00,000/- allegedly credited in bank account of the assessee as share application money. The AO has held the said transaction as accommodation entry. The CIT(A) has given a categoric finding of fact that there was no transaction of Rs.40,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. Once there is no credit of Rs.40,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee, provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of such alleged transaction cannot be invoked. I find no infirmity in findings of the CIT(A)

3 ITA No. 2367/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2011-12)

on this issue. Hence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 21/05/2026

NV/- प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →