DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S GLOBE BROADCASTING PVT. LTD., NOIDA

ITA 4917/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2019-2010 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which deleted an addition of Rs. 5,62,37,599/- made by the National Faceless Assessment Unit, Delhi. This addition was under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged unsecured loans received by the assessee, M/s Globe Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., for Assessment Year 2019-20. The original assessment order was passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B. The assessee had filed its return of loss on 18.01.2020. The case was reopened based on information regarding an unexplained credit of Rs. 1,23,40,000/- from M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd., an entity allegedly involved in ponzi schemes. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 5,62,37,599/- on account of unsecured loans from ten parties, citing non-response to notices under Section 133(6) and the assessee's failure to establish identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. This was based on the fact that the notice initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 was issued by an ACIT who did not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction over the appellant, as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The returned loss of the assessee was Rs. 11,07,875/-, and the instruction dictates that for corporate assessees in metro charges with returned income/loss less than Rs. 30,00,000/-, jurisdiction lies with the ITO, not ACIT/DCIT. The Tribunal relied on several precedents, including ITO v. Picheswar Gadde, to support this view, distinguishing between territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, Additional Ground No. 1 filed by the assessee was accepted, rendering other additional grounds academic. On the merits of the appeal, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 5,62,37,599/-. The CIT(A) had conducted an enquiry under Section 250(4) and found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the unsecured loans with documentary evidence, establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,23,40,000/- pertained to credits from M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd., which had already been offered as revenue. Therefore, the grounds on merits were also found to have no substance. The appeal of the department was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148/148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are bad in law due to assumption of power by a non-jurisdictional authority, in defiance of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, concerning pecuniary jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The reassessment proceedings and the consequent order are void ab initio because the notice under Section 148 was issued by an ACIT who lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, given the assessee's returned loss of Rs. 11,07,875/-. Reliance is placed on multiple Tribunal and High Court decisions, including ITO v. Picheswar Gadde and Sapna Rastogi v. ITO. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the Revenue regarding the jurisdictional issue. However, the Revenue's appeal challenges the deletion of the addition on merits, implying a disagreement with the FAA's findings. 2. Whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,62,37,599/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified on merits, considering the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee regarding the unsecured loans. Assessee's Contention: The assessee had provided detailed clarifications, documentary evidence, bank statements, ledger accounts, and demonstrated the utilization and repayment of unsecured loans, establishing their identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The addition was made mechanically by the AO. The amount of Rs. 1,23,40,000/- from M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. was already offered as revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition without proper verification and without remanding the issue to the AO, thereby not exercising powers under Section 250(4) correctly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 143(1),Section 133(6),Section 250,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 120,Section 124(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 24.02.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No:

ITA 4917/DEL/2026 M/S GLOBE BROADCASTING PVT. LTD.

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086461463(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 11.03.2024 u/s 147r.w.s144B of the Income Ta

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 68

All 29,634 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →