C.R. INVESTMENTS,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the addition. It was held that the assessee had provided all relevant details for the dividend income and there was no proven nexus of irregularity between the assessee and the payer group that would warrant the addition under section 68.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2018-19, challenging an order related to proceedings under section 147. The lower authorities treated the assessee's exempt dividend income of Rs. 40,53,468/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE.
What were the issues?
Whether dividend income treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 is sustainable when the assessee provided supporting details and no nexus of irregularity was proved?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Durga Prasad More1,579 citing82 ITR 540 · 1971 · SC
- (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.696 citing412 ITR 161 · 2019 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072279835(1), dated 17.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assesseee’s exempt dividend income amounting to Rs.40,53,468/- derived from its investments made as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in assessment order dated 27th March, 2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the impugned addition. The Revenue, more particularly, seeks to buttress the point that the learned departmental authorities had carried out a search in question in the “payee” group wherein it came across various serious irregularities in payment of such dividends as discussed in the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings.
We find no reason to sustain the impugned addition. We make it clear that not only the assessee/appellant has filed all the relevant details in support of its dividend income but also there is no nexus of any irregularity proved between this assessee and the payer group which could warrant the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act going by Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR
2 | P a g e 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). We further reiterate that the assessee has all along filed its entire detailed evidence which has nowhere been specifically rebutted in both the lower proceedings. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground to delete the impugned addition of Rs.40,53,468/- in very terms. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026