JHM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(3), DELHI

ITA 3344/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing the ITRs, bank statements, and audited accounts of the three purchasing companies. The AO's sole reason for rejecting the explanation was the non-response to notices under Section 133(6). The Tribunal noted that the AO had not recorded any adverse comments on the furnished documents and that the purchase of shares by the assessee in earlier years was not disputed. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 36,000/- under Section 69C, which was consequential to the Section 68 addition, was also directed to be deleted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, JHM Developers Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee had sold unlisted shares to three companies: Mid Way Commercial P. Ltd., Sunrise Dealmart P. Ltd., and Shyam Dealtrade P. Ltd., for a total of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The assessee provided ITRs, bank statements, and audited accounts of these companies to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely because notices issued under Section 133(6) to these companies remained unresponded. An additional sum of Rs. 36,000/- was added under Section 69C, presumed to be commission paid for accommodation entries. The assessee contended that it had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when the assessee has provided ITRs, bank statements, and audited accounts of the purchasing companies, and the sole reason for rejection by the AO is non-response to notices under Section 133(6)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it had discharged its onus under Section 68 by furnishing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The purchase of shares was not disputed, and the sale was a normal business transaction. The addition should be deleted. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that notices issued to the purchasing companies were unserved, and no confirmation or other documents were furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the addition should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Nirmal Nangia, Sr.DR

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had sold unlisted shares to following companies:

Name of the

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 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →