BINDAL TRANSOLUTION PVT LTD,DELHI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI

CO 108/DEL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (revenue) appealing against the order of the CIT(A) which quashed the reassessment of Bindal Transolutions Private Limited for the assessment year 2020-21. The revenue contended that the assessee had taken bogus unsecured loans and engaged in transactions that were not genuine, involving an entry operator named Shri Himanshu Verma. The CIT(A) had earlier found the reassessment to be invalid, leading to the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the second reopening of the case was based on the same information as the first, without any new evidence, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 853654 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2026
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2026
• Other Referred Cases: CIT V. N.R. Portfolio P. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del.), Ravi Kishan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.7145/Del/2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATAP GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHOPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Tax effect; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Bogus loan; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1258/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] ACIT Central Circle-25 Delhi vs Bindal Transolutions Private Limited G-57, Opp. H.No.-66, East of Kailash, Delhi-110065 PAN No.AAECB3657R Appellant Respondent Cross objection No.108/Del/2026 (In ITA No.1258/Del/2026) [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Bindal Transolutions Private Limited G-57, Opp. H.No.-66, East of Kailash, Delhi-110065 PAN No.AAECB3657R vs ACIT Central Circle-25 Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA Date of Hearing 13.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M. Appeal in this case has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the PCIT Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 (Appeals)-31, New Delhi for the A.Y. 2020-21. Grounds of appeal are as under :- a. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the findings, the assessee has taken bogus unsecured loan of Rs. 78,00,000/- from M/s Highrise Securities & Trading Pvt. Ltd. during the assessment year 2019- 20during the year under consideration which are non- descript companies and has no genuine business. The entity is managed and controlled by Shri himanshu Verma the entry operator. b. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the transaction was bogus in nature and hence, the decision for the assessment year 2019-20 is not acceptable and further appeal is recommended in the assessment year 2019-20 against the order vide appeal DIN No ITIBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1083108836(1) dated 28.11.2025 in the case of M/S BINDAL TRANSOLUTION P. LTD..., PAN AAΕΣΒ36578, ΑΥ 2019-20 c. The Ld. CIT(A), did not appreciated the fact, that mere repayment of the said unsecured loans on before the search proceedings on the entities does not gives the legitimacy to the transaction d. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the findings, of search proceedings on the entry operator, Shri Himanshu Verma, establishes that the assessee along with associated entities was indulged in accepting huge cash, out of books, booked bogus expenses, and taking bogus accommodation entries aggregating \"routing the unexplained money\" in parallel black economy of entire Galaxy Group willingly to evade taxes as per the requirement of his beneficiaries. e. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the Non-descript entities involved with Sh. Himanshu Verma gives non genuine transaction, on account of accommodation entries in the form of bogus loan/purchase/sales, which were given/taken in so a sophisticated manner with taking care of each step to give the image of legal transaction by utilizing web of bank accounts in different banks as well as books of accounts in respective entities. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 f. It is settled position that once the counter party is found to be a paper company with no real business. Banking channel payments cannot confer legitimacy on the transaction (CIT V. N.R. Portfolio P. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del.). The CIT(A) erred in holding that repayment alone proves genuineness. On the contrary, repayment itself may be a circular movement of funds arranged to give colour of authenticity. g. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that these entry provider have established a organized tax evasion racket and are working in such a large scale which is against the economic security of nation. h. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the existence of these entities at the address could not be established. i. The Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT has upheld/ confirmed that these entities are accommodation entry operator. j. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. k. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.. 2. Per contra the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 3. We find that the first notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023 and the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B was passed by the AO/ NFAC by accepting all the transactions of the assessee to be genuine and correct on 18.03.2024. Again a notice u/s.148 was issued on 31.03.2024 on the same issue and the assessment order was passed u/s.147/148 of the Act on 22.03.2025. Thus, it is clear that the second reopening of the case u/s.148 of the Act was on the basis of similar information without bringing any further evidences / additional information on Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 record by the AO. It does not hold good. There are many orders of the coordinate Benches of ITAT as one of them is in the case of Ravi Kishan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.7145/Del/2026 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has quashed the reassessment order passed by the AO which was reopened for the second time by the AO on the basis of similar information which was already available with the Ld. AO/ department prior to reopening of the assessment. 4. In our considered view notice u/s.148 of the Act cannot issued on the same information on which reassessment has already been done/ completed u/s.147 of the Act. In this case the same thing has happened. The AO has reopened the case for the second time on the same information on which case was re-opened in the first instance, therefore, the action of the revenue of making such assessment cannot be sustained. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly quashed the assessment. Accordingly, we find no reason to make any interference in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has quashed the order of the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, revenue’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. Cross Objection 108/Del/2026 A.Y. 2020-21 5. Cross objection in this case has been filed by the assessee. Grounds of the cross objection are as under :- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 1. That Id CIT (A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the reopening of assessment which suffers from various legal infirmities and order so passed on the basis of invalid proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2 Without prejudice to ground of appeal no.1 the Id CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act in view of explanation 2 of section 148 of the Income Tax Act in absence of any evidence and documents pertaining to assessee allegedly been found and seized during the course of search proceedings and copy of panchnama in case of other person which is mandatory requirement of the relevant provision by Id Assessing Officer in spite of repeated request. 3 Without prejudice to ground of appeal no.1 and 2 proceeding initiated by Id Assessing Officer without bringing any evidence of any indiscriminating seized documents found during the course of search proceedings in case of other person in spite of repeated request made and in absence of satisfaction note recorded by the assessing officer of other person and assessing officer of the appellant assessee that documents so seized pertains to the appellant assessee requisitioned made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act as required in view of explanation 2 of section 148 is bad in law and accordingly assessment order so passed on the basis of invalid proceedings is liable to quashed. and 4. Without prejudice to ground of appeal no 1 and 2 of the cross objection, Id CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the order passed by Id Assessing Officer as valid which was passed by Id Assessing Officer against the principal of natural justice without confronting any material and evidences against the assessee and without calling any person who has given any statement against the assessee for cross examination and thus order so passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5 Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 1 to 4m proceeding initiated u/s 148 which suffers from other Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 various legal infirmities in view of provision of section 147 to 151 and other relevant provision of law is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6 The appellant assessee has every right to add, delete, modify and or alter any grounds of cross objection at the time of hearing. Total tax effect (see note below) 6. In the revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1258/Del/2026 we have already decided the issue that the second reopening of the assessment u/s.148 of the Act cannot be sustained if the first reopening was done on the same issue. While reopening the case for the second time, all information was already on record of the AO and nothing new in the name of facts or evidences was brought on record by the AO. On this issue we have already quashed the order of the AO. 7. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee on the legal ground is allowed which is academic in nature. 8. Since we have already given findings on this jurisdictional issue. We are not inclined to give finding on other issues on merits. 9. In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal field by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 17.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "