INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), DELHI vs. COLAB PLATFORMS LIMITED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4692/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was clear and categorical. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked unless the assessee has actually received cash or an amount which it fails to explain to the satisfaction of the AO. In this case, the sale proceeds were merely book entries, and no actual amount was received by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) to be a speaking order and did not require any interference. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC New Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal challenges the deletion of an addition of Rs. 88,07,500/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made this addition on the grounds that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to explain the nature and source of certain credits. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition. The Revenue also contested the acceptance of the assessee's claim for agricultural income without substantiating actual agricultural operations and criticized the reliance on self-serving documents and the AO's verification process.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88,07,500/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee allegedly failed to discharge its onus to explain the nature and source of the credits. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's claim of agricultural income without appreciating that the assessee failed to furnish credible and verifiable evidence to substantiate actual agricultural operations. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained on mere book entries, as the assessee did not actually receive any sale proceeds from the buyer of the agricultural produce. The sale proceeds were only book entries. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88,07,500/- made under Section 68, as the assessee failed to discharge the onus to explain the nature and source of the sale credits. The Revenue also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the agricultural income claim without appreciating the lack of credible evidence for actual agricultural operations and criticized the reliance on incomplete sale invoices and the AO's verification process.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20/07/2026Pronounced: 24/09/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4692/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO Ward- 6 (1) Colab Platforms Limited Delhi Office no. 201, namdhari Vs Chamber Anand Parbat SO Anand Parbat Central Delhi 110005 PAN No.AAACJ0114B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA

Date of hearing: 20/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24/09/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC New Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1.

On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88,07,500/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to explain the nature and source of the said credits. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding agricultural income without appreciating, that the assessee failed to furnish credible and verifiable evidence to substantiate actual agricultural operations. 3. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying upon self-serving documents such as incomplete sale invoices which lacked essential details like transportation particulars and acknowledgment of receipt by the purchaser. 4. On the facts of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that no verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that notice under section 133(6) was issued to the alleged purchaser, which remained uncomplied, thereby further casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. 5. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that mere furnishing of a lease agreement does not establish actual agricultural operations and does not discharge the burden of proof required for claiming exempt agricultural income. 6. The appellant craves leave to add. alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

2.

During proceedings before us the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error by deleing the addition of Rs.8807500/- made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act. The main argument of the Ld. DR was that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon to explain the nature and source of sale credits. The Ld. CIT(A) simply ignored it and passed the appellate order.

3.

Per contra the ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a written submission which is reproduced as under :-

4.

The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also argued on the line of the written submission filed by him. 5. We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order and by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in the order that actual cash credit did not exist in the books of account. The ld.

Counsel also argued that the assessee has merely made book entries of the sale of agricultural produce and that assessee did not receive any sale proceeds from the buyer of the agricultural produce Therefore, any addition made u/s.68 cannot be sustained on mere book entries. 6. We have heard both the parties and we are of this considered view that the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) on different grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are very clear and categorical. So, unless some cash / amount is received by the assessee which the assessee fails to explain / fails to explain to the satisfaction of the AO, section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. Herein this case nothing has been received sale proceeds are only the book entry for the same. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is a speaking order and, therefore, in our considered view it does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal field by the revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 24.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.09.2026 Neha, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →