PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KANPUR vs. M/S CINFLEX INFOTECH PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 130 / 2025HC Delhi02 May 20252 pages
For Petitioner: VIPUL AGRAWAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The CIT(A) had examined the facts and concluded that the Assessee had discharged its onus to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹10,89,00,000/- on account of share capital under Section 68. The AO found that the subscribing entities were non-existent or had vacated their premises, and they did not appear despite notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessee discharged its onus to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital transaction when the subscribing entities were found to be non-existent or untraceable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 130/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KANPUR .....Appellant Through: Mr Vipul Agrawal, SSC. versus M/S CINFLEX INFOTECH PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 02.05.2025 CM APPLs. 26588-89/2025 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing and re- filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA 130/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.6695/Del/2017 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the CIT(A) dated 30.06.2017 was rejected. The Assessing Officer [AO] had passed an assessment order dated 30.03.2015 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of AY 2012-13 making an addition of a sum of ₹10,89,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of share capital This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:04:19

issued by the respondent [Assessee]. The AO found that the said capital was subscribed by nineteen separate companies. 4. It is also stated that notices were issued to the said entities for examining their identity and creditworthiness, however, none had appeared before the AO. Field enquiries were also conducted. It is reported that some of the entities had already vacated the premises while some others were found to be non-existent. The Assessee had appealed the assessment order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had examined the facts and had concluded that the Assessee had discharged its onus to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 5. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 19.11.2025. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 02, 2025/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:04:19

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →