SONIA KATARIYA, ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI, DELHI vs. ANITA BENTSON, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 143/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) ACIT, Circle – 1(1)(2) Vs. Anita Bentson International Taxation 126, Malcha Marg, Delhi Chankyapuri, New Delhi – 110 002 PAN No. ATUPB 1684 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by -None- Revenue by Shri Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This above captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi-42 dated 06.01.2026 arising out of the assessment order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the ACIT, Circle, International Taxation-1(1)(2) under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

IT(IT)A No. 143/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15] Sonia Katariya, ACIT vs. Anita Bentson 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR at length who assisted us with the facts of the case. Case records carefully perused and considered. 3. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. “The Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper appreciation of facts, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of NSEL investments. Relief was granted without independent verification, contrary to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting that investments pertained to earlier years based solely on assessee's submissions, without verifying disclosure or assessment in the relevant years. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by treating unexplained credits as part of a running account, ignoring the settled principle that each credit must be independently explained. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the abnormal and suspicious nature of NSEL transactions, which were under investigation for accommodation entities and artificial credits. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting additions relating to bank credits without proper examination of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness as required under section 68. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the investments as explained merely on the basis of bank entries, without examining the source of the funds. 7. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on incomplete verification and selective appreciation of facts and is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.”

Page 2 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 143/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15] Sonia Katariya, ACIT vs. Anita Bentson 5. The AO had information in his possession that the assessee had traded in commodities on NSEL (National Spot Exchange Limited) platform where fraudulent and unregulated activities have been reported by various law enforcement authorities. The assessee was found to be one of the traders on NSEL and was having amount of Rs. 60,06,038/- as outstanding as receivables on 30.07.2013 from trading on NSEL Platform. 6. The AO noted that the income declared by the assessee in its ITR for the AY 2014- 15 didn’t justify the quantum of investment in NSEL nor establish the source of this investment made by the assessee. Further no income was found declared in the RoI under the head LTCG or STCG from the trading activities caried out by the assessee on the NSEL Platform. Therefore, the AO formed reasons to believe that the assessee had not disclosed the true facts about its income during the year and source and nature of the transaction of Rs. 60,06,038/- during the AY 2014-15 remained unexplained. Accordingly, the amount outstanding/recoverable from NSEL of Rs. 60,06,038 was held to be the income which had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the case was reopened for assessment u/s 148 by issue of notice dated 28.06.2021.

Page 3 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 143/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15] Sonia Katariya, ACIT vs. Anita Bentson 7. The assessee filed her ITR on 09.06.2022 in response to the initial notice issued u/s 148 declaring total income of Rs.31,53,370 same as declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(3) had been completed on 25.07.2023 assessing total Income at Rs.4,88,62,389 making following additions. (i) Addition of Rs.95,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C being the amount of purchases made on the NSEL platform through the broker Mount Shikhar Commodities Pvt Ltd. (ii) Addition of Rs. 62,49,020/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 being the amount of sales made on the NSEL platform; (iii) Addition of Rs.2,10,60,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 being total of unexplained credit entries in assessee's ICICI Bank account no. 34601075174; (iv) Addition of Rs. 89,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 being total of unexplained debit entries in assessee's ICICI Bank account no. 34601075174; 8. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 25.07.2023 under Section 147 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the assessee had filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) deleted the various addition made by the AO. Aggrieved with the learned CIT(A)’s order dated 06.01.2026, the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 9. The revenue’s grievance is that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that NSEL transactions were abnormal in nature and were under investigation for accommodation entries and artificial credits. The ld DR argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly accepted the explanation related to sale of property without proper verification and is accepted

Page 4 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 143/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15] Sonia Katariya, ACIT vs. Anita Bentson the loan explanation without examining the financial capacity and the source of fund of lender. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions by observing as under: "8.1 Perusal of the impugned assessment order shows that the impugned addition of Rs. 95,00,000 has been made by the AO treating the said amount to be unexplained expenditure on purchases made by the assessee while trading in commodities on the NSEL platform through the broker Moten Shikhar Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 8.4 From the above derails, it is apparent that out of Rs. 95,00,000, the amount of Rs. 68,00,000 was paid by the assessee to the broker Mount Shikhar during the FY 2011-12 and Rs 12,00,000 were paid during FY 2012- 13. Thus, as the payments totaling to Rs. 80,00,000 do not pertain to the AY 2014-15 under consideration, no addition thereof as unexplained expenditure/investment is sustainable for the AY 2014-15 at the threshold itself. Therefore, the addition of RS. 80,00,000 made u/s 69C is hereby deleted as not pertaining to AY 2014-15 under consideration in the instant case. 8.6 AO has also made separate addition of Rs. 2,10,60,000 treating certain credit entries in the said ICICI bank a/c as unexplained credit u/s 68. On such facts, the AO is not found justified in making separate addition of Rs. 15,00,000 treating the amount invested with Mount Shikhar for trading in commodities during the FY 2013-14 as unexplained purchase of commodities u/s 69C. 8.7 In view of the findings arrived at para 8.4 & 8.6 above, the entire impugned addition of RS 95,00,000 made by the AO u/s 69C is deleted. The grounds of appeal raised in this regard are thus, allowed. 9.1 Perusal of the assessment order shows that the impugned addition of Rs. 62,49,020 has been made by the AO stating that the above amount is the amount of Sales made by the assessee on the NSEL platform. 9.7 In view of the above discussions, the impugned addition of RS. 62,49,020 made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 is hereby deleted. CSR in the cases of Anita Bentzon, PAN- ATUPB1634N. in CIT (A), Delhi- 42 10245/2013-14 dated 06.01 2026 for A1 2014-13

Page 5 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 143/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15] Sonia Katariya, ACIT vs. Anita Bentson 10. Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the impugned addition of Rs. 2,10 60,000 has been made by the AO by treating the following credit entries in the assessee's ICICI Bank account no 34601075174 as unexplained. 10.5 In view of the above, the amount of Rs. 1,31,00,000 (20,00,000, Rs. 98,00,000 and Rs 13,00,000) being received against sale of property which is duly declared in the ITR filed, cannot be treated as unexplained. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,31,00,000 out of total impugned addition of Rs. 2,10,60,000 is hereby deleted. 10.9 In view of the above details and supporting documents, as the nature and source stands satisfactorily explained, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 made by the AO treating the above amount received as part of inheritance from mother in the form of debentures as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 is hereby directed to be deleted. 10.11 On perusal of the ITR and the Computation of Income, it is noted that the assessee has declared gross rental receipts of Rs. 36,45,000 from the Embassy of Finland under the head Income from House Property for the AY 2014-15. In view thereof, the impugned amount of Rs. 39,60,000 received on 19.02.2014 is found duly explained being on account of rent of hous. property received from the Embassy of Finland, the tenant. The addition of Rs. 39,60,000 is accordingly deleted. 10.13.....In view therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 made by the AO u/s 68 is not found sustainable being repayment of temporary loan received from Mr Uday Punj with identity, creditworthiness of the payer and genuineness of the transaction duty established with credible documentary evidence. The impugned addition of Rs 20,00,000 is accordingly deleted. 10.14 To summarise, with the findings given at para 10.5, 10.9, 10.11. & 10.13 above, the entire impugned addition of Rs. 2,10,60,000 made by the AO u/s 68 on account of the credit entries in ICICI Bank account of the assessee stands deleted. The concerned grounds of appeals are, thus. treated as allowed. 11.1 Perusal of the assessment order (para 13 &14) reveals that the impugned addition of Rs 89,00,000 has been made by the AO by treating the following debit entries in the assesse's ICICI Bank account no. 34601075174 as unexplained. 11.4 Thus, the impugned addition of Rs. 89,00,000 made by the AO u/s 69 is liable to be deleted in full at the threshold itself being in the nature of double taxation. The same is accordingly deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Page 6 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 143/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2014-15] Sonia Katariya, ACIT vs. Anita Bentson 11. In view of the above findings of the CIT(A), we hardly see any reasons to interfere with his conclusions. The amount Rs.80 lakh added pertain to F.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13, has not been rebutted by the Revenue. The finding of the CIT(A) with regard to sales made on NSEL platform also remains unrebutted. Likewise with addition of credit of Rs 2.10 crore and debits of Rs 89 lakh in the bank account of the assessee, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) and delete the additions made by the AO. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 27.07.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 7 of 8