DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUBER FINANCE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3), Section 254, Section 158BFA(1)

ITSSA 4/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 August 20266 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- was correctly deleted by the CIT(A) as it was a double addition, given that the assessee had duly accounted for this sum in its regular books of accounts as "miscellaneous income". The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding. Regarding the addition of Rs. 15,67,23,540/- for investment in shares and securities and Rs. 82,870/- as profit on sale of shares, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting that these additions were not based on the relevant seized material found during the search. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. In the assessee's cross-objection, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the charging of interest under Section 158BFA(1) regarding the delay in filing the return, as per a previous co-ordinate bench order. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to compute the impugned interest or surcharge as per law, referencing the ratio in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I vs Vatika Townships (P.) Ltd. [[2014] 49 taxmann.com 249 (SC)], holding that subsequent amendments should not fasten interest liability. The cross-objection was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue and a cross-objection by the assessee, M/s Kuber India Limited, for the block period 01.04.1987 to 08.05.1997. The appeals arise from an order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, concerning proceedings under Section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had made additions totaling Rs. 11,00,000/- for alleged unexplained expenditure (payment to Sh. Arun Jain) and Rs. 15,67,23,540/- for investment in shares and securities, along with Rs. 82,870/- as profit on sale of shares. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, leading to the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- on account of concealment of income (payment to Sh. Arun Jain as unexplained expenditure)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,67,23,540/- for investment in shares and securities and the addition of Rs. 82,870/- as profit on sale of shares? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs was a double addition as it was already accounted for in its regular books of accounts as "miscellaneous income". Regarding the investment in shares and securities and profit on sale of shares, the assessee contended that these additions were not based on relevant seized material found during the search. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 11,00,000/- and Rs. 15,67,23,540/- along with Rs. 82,870/-, seeking to revive these additions. The Revenue's specific arguments for each deletion were not detailed in the provided text, but their appeal grounds indicate disagreement with the CIT(A)'s findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 158BFA(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: CA Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv

Hearing: 17.07.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 4/Del/2015 with C.O. No. 70/Del/2016 Block Period: 01.04.1987 – 08.05.1997

M/s Kuber India Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner of S-32, G.K.-1, New Delhi Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Circle-14(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) PAN No. AAACD 3854 F

Assessee by: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing: 17.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 10.08.2026 ORDER This Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objection i.e., ITA No. 4/Del/2015 with CO No. 70/Del/2016, for block period 1.4.1987 to 08.05.1997 arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), New Delhi’s order dated 07.05.2015 passed in Order No. 0702/2010-11, involving proceedings u/s 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

The Revenue’s appeal IT(SS)A No. 4/Del/2015 raises the following substantive grounds: “That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs.

2 11,00,000/-.on basis of concealment of income (payment to Sh. Arun Jain as unexplained expenditure) 2. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,67,23,540/- for investment in shares and securities and addition of Rs. 82,870/- as profit on sale of shares. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”

We next note that the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion under challenge has reversed the Assessing Officer’s action making aforesaid additions in the assessee’s hands, as follows:

This leaves the Revenue aggrieved.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the learned CIT(A) above extracted detailed discussion deleting the impugned twin

4 additions. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the assessee had duly accounted for the above former sum of Rs. 11 lakhs in its regular books of accounts as “miscellaneous income”. This clinching fact itself led the learned CIT(A) to conclude the impugned addition as an instance of double addition which stands deleted in very terms. We thus find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A) conclusive to the very effect.

The outcome would be ultimately any different regarding the Revenue’s latter substantive ground seeking to revive the addition of Rs. 15,67,23,540/- as it has come on record that the same is not based on the relevant seized material found during the course of search. We thus conclude that the learned CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion has rightly granted relief to the assessee on the foregoing twin substantive issues as well as the alleged profit on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 82,870/-. The Revenue’s instant substantive grounds as well as main appeal herein IT(SS)A No. 4/Del/2015 fails therefore.

Next comes the assessee’s cross objection CO. No. 70/Del/2016, Mr. Gupta states that the same partly stands rendered infructuous as we have already upheld the learned CIT(A) foregoing lower appellate findings deleting the impugned additions on merits.

5 7. That being the case, the only twin issues ought to be raised at the assessee’s behest herein is that of charging of interest u/s 158BFA(1) of the Act. It quotes this tribunal’s order dated 09.01.2018 in P.K. Sharma case(supra) in ITA No. 417/Dek/2004 emanating from the very search wherein the learned co-ordinate bench had directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the afresh regarding the delay in filing of the return as to whether it was attributable to the said related party or not. We thus adopt judicial consistency to direct the learned Assessing Officer to carry out this consequential verification exercise in very terms.

Lastly comes the assessee’s grievance that the relevant interest herein ought to be charged @1 %. Learned counsel quotes Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I vs Vatika Townships (P.) Ltd. [[2014] 49 taxmann.com 249 (SC) that the impugned interest liability ought not be fastened on the assessee based on any subsequent amendment. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to compute the impugned interest or surcharge; as the case may be, as per law going by their lordships ratio deciding the issue against the department. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s cross objection CO No. 70/Del/2016 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

No other ground or arguments has been pressed before us.

6 9. This Revenue’s appeal IT(SS)A No. 4/Del/2015 is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 70/Del./2016 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10.08.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →