DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 29 , NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, EAST DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 43/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. However, since the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry business, a profit element of 3% was deemed just and proper for the impugned transactions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14, which deleted the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee remained ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under section 68 was justified, and if not, what should be the profit element in case of accommodation entries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 09.02.2026

Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 25.09.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1081171242(1), involving proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/respondent’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex- parte.

2.

Delay of 2 days in filing the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Coming to the Revenue’s pleadings in the instant appeal, it transpires during the course of hearing that it seeks to reverse learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s findings deleting the Assessing Officer’s addition of Rs.35,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act in his assessment order dated 24.02.2022.

4.

Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the asssessee is a shell entity routing the accommodation entries from M/s. Himanshu Verma group; and, therefore, the impugned section 68 addition had been rightly made in its hands. This tribunal sees no merits in either party’s vehement stands against and in support of the CIT(A)/NFAC’s findings in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee has also failed to plead and prove the corresponding genuineness in the impugned transactions. Be that as it may, once it is prima facie established that this assessee is engaged in accommodation entry business, only a profit element @ 3% in the given facts is deemed to be just and proper with a rider

2 | P a g e that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The learned Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to assess the assessee at the very rate qua the impugned alleged accommodation entry(ies) of Rs.35 lakhs in very terms. No other ground or argument has been pressed.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →