ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI vs. ANUJ PACKAGING LLP, DELHI

ITA 7583/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 69A of the Act. The Tribunal found considerable force in the assessee's argument that the revenue had accepted the loan receipt as genuine in the year of receipt, as no addition was made under Section 68. Therefore, the revenue could not take a divergent stand in the year of repayment. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to bring on record concrete evidence to show that the assessee was in receipt of cash from the NBFC after repayment or that the repayment was made from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Bhavani Finvest Private Limited relied upon by the revenue, stating it was factually distinguishable because in that case, an addition was made in the year of receipt of the loan, whereas in the present case, the loan receipt was accepted as genuine by the revenue. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anuj Packaging LLP, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,820. A search action on 17-11-2021 revealed that Shri Deepak Agarwal and Shri Himanshu Verma were involved in providing accommodation entries. The assessee had received an unsecured loan of Rs. 20 lakhs from M/s. High Rise Securities and Trading Private Limited in an earlier year and repaid it during AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the repayment of this loan under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging M/s. High Rise Securities and Trading Private Limited was a paper entity controlled by Shri Himanshu Verma. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition. The Revenue appealed this deletion to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 69A of the Act on account of repayment of loan to an entity alleged to be a paper entity managed and controlled by Shri Himanshu Verma, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in correspondingly deleting the alleged accommodation commission expenditure of Rs. 60,000/- by not treating it as an accommodation entry? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that M/s. High Rise Securities and Trading Private Limited is an active NBFC with sufficient share capital and reserves. The AO failed to provide evidence of a cheque-for-cash transaction or that unexplained cash accrued to the assessee from the repayment. The ownership of alleged cash or money in the assessee's possession was not proved. Furthermore, no addition was made by the revenue in the year of receipt of the loan, which was accepted as genuine. Therefore, no addition could be made on repayment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Bhavani Finvest Private Limited (ITA No. 6303/Del/2025) to argue that repayment of a loan with interest in subsequent years does not make the initial receipt genuine if it was an accommodation entry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 132,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH

The appeal in ITA No.7583/Del/2026 for AY 2020-21, arises out of 1. the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 19.03.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-

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 →