NAMAH SHIVAYA TRADING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders for the three entities, passed after a search action, did not assess them under sections 68 or 69, leading to the conclusion that they were not accommodation entry providers.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was against an order that made an addition of Rs. 45 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit, alleged to be share application money from three entities.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit is justified when the source entities were not assessed for accommodation entries in their own assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 153C,Section 68,Section 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 21.07.2025 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078715193(1)] in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made section 68 unexplained cash credit addition in the assessee’s hands to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs allegedly received from M/s Sunny Cast & Forge Ltd., Attractive Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and Shalini Holdings Ltd. involving share application premium money of Rs. 25 lakhs, Rs. 10 lakhs each, respectively.
3. There is no dispute between the parties that learned lower authorities have proceeded against the assessee in furtherance to a search action on M/s S.K. Jain group. The assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to the respective assessment orders passed u/s 153C of the Act, all dated 28.03.2013 in the above three entities’ cases not assessing them either u/s 68 or 69, as the case may be, which leads to the conclusion that they could not have been held as accommodation entry providers and the assessee being beneficiary thereof; as the case may be, for the purpose of making the impugned addition. The same is directed to be deleted, therefore.
Order pronounced in open court on 28.08.2025.
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 →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026