DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32, DELHI vs. SEGMENTAL CONSULTING & INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY PVT. LTD., GURGAON

ITA 1383/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions made under section 69A and section 69C were not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's addition under section 69A was based on the ledger account, which showed only an opening balance and no fresh loans received by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion that the additions were not justified. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that the loan of Rs. 37,18,663/- was taken and repaid through banking channels before the date of the section 148 notice. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the ITAT's decision in Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that repayment of loans before the notice under section 148, even if managed by an operator, indicates genuine transactions. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (DCIT Central Circle 32) is in appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-30, New Delhi, dated 30.10.2025. The assessee, Segmental Consulting & Infrastructure Advisory Pvt. Ltd., is respondent in the appeal and appellant in the cross-objection. The assessment year is 2019-20. The assessment order, dated 31.03.2024, was passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi, under sections 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was reopened based on information from a search at Galaxi Group, alleging the assessee transacted with M/s Mysore Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 10,61,546/-) and M/s Aarti Securities and Services Ltd. (Rs. 26,57,117/-). These entities were allegedly controlled by an accommodation entry operator. Additions of Rs. 37,18,663/- under section 69A and Rs. 1,11,560/- under section 69C were made, invoking section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 37,18,663/- under section 69A and consequential addition of Rs. 1,11,560/- under section 69C are justified, considering the assessee repaid the loan along with interest through banking channels before the date of the section 148 notice. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the loans were taken and repaid through banking channels before the reassessment notice dated 31.03.2023. The assessee relied on the ITAT's decision in Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that repayment of loans before the section 148 notice, even if from entities managed by an operator, validates the transaction, as such loans are typically not repaid. The assessee submitted ledger accounts, confirmations, and bank transaction evidence showing repayment with interest by April 2018. Revenue's Contention: The Assessing Officer (AO) held that mere repayment does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine and that the repayment was made to non-descript companies with no genuine business or creditworthiness. The AO's addition was based on the ledger account showing only an opening balance, not fresh loans received during the year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 1383/DEL/2026
C.O.188/DEL/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI BENCH: G BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 1383/DEL/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा/AssessmentYear:2019-20) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 SEGMENTAL CONSULTING & INFRASTRUCTURE ROOM NO 359 3RD FLOOR ARA ADVISORY PVT. LTD. CENTRE E2 JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION NEW DELHI 110055, 419A - 421,TOWER B-4 SPAZE I NEW DELHI-110055, DELHI TECH PARK SOHNA ROAD Vs. SECTOR-49 GURGAON HARYANA 122018 GURGAON-122018, HARYANA अपीलधर्थीAppellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAMCS8839C

C.O.188/DEL/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) SEGMENTAL CONSULTING & DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY ROOM NO 359 3RD FLOOR ARA PVT. LTD. CENTRE E2 JHANDEWALAN 419A - 421,TOWER B-4 SPAZE I EXTENSION NEW DELHI TECH PARK SOHNA ROAD Vs. 110055, NEW DELHI-110055, SECTOR-49 GURGAON HARYANA DELHI 122018 GURGAON-122018, HARYANA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAMCS8839C

अपीलार्थीद्वारा/Appellant represented by: Ms. RakhiVimal, CIT, DR प्रत्यर्थीद्वारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Garg, CA सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →