INNER CHEF PRIVATE LTD,GURUGRAM V. ACIT,CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

ITA 2184/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Inner Chef Pvt Ltd, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues in the appeal were the treatment of a declared loss as income, additions under section 68 for unexplained credits, and disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on certain payments. The Assessing Officer had treated substantial amounts received as share capital and premium from various shareholders as unexplained credits and added them to the income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing further verification of the creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction by referring the issue back to the AO for verification and did not adjudicate on the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780408 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER KAPOOR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 68; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2184/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] Inner Chef Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T Analog Coffee, GI-11, Circle - 4(1) Ground Floor, Cross Point Mall, Gurgaon Gurugram, Haryana PAN: AADCI 7492 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sameer Kapoor, CA Department By : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 10.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2184 /DEL/2025 Inner Chef Vs ACIT [A.Y 2017-18] Page 2 of 6 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: “1. Whether the Id. A.O has erred in law and facts of the case in considering loss of Rs. 15,39,98,889/- declared by the assessee company as Income. 2. Whether the ld. A.O has erred in law and facts of the case in making addition u/s 68 of Rs. 14,85,07,750/- and charging tax u/s 115BBE (as per para 4 of assessment order) 3. Whether the Id. A.O has erred in law and facts of the case in making disallowance of u/s 40a(ia) amounting to Rs. 4,05,631/-. 4. The assessee retain the right to add/delete/modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Return of Income on 31.10.2017 declaring loss of Rs. 15,39,98,889/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices alongwith questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received share capital and premium of Rs. 14,85,07,750/- for subscription of total 9737 shares at Rs. 15,251/- per share. The share capital and premium from non- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2184 /DEL/2025 Inner Chef Vs ACIT [A.Y 2017-18] Page 3 of 6 resident (foreign companies) was Rs 12.54 crore and from resident shareholders, it was Rs 2.31 crore. The assessee was asked to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the allotees to whom the shares had been allotted along with the genuineness of the transactions and finding the explanation inadequate, treated the amount of Rs. 14,85,07,750/- as unexplained credits found in the accounts of the assessee and taxed the same u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Further, the assessee was asked to reconcile the disallowances made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the ITR and Audit Report alongwith supporting documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that the assessee had made payments of Rs. 13,52,106/- to various vendors on which TDS was not deducted. Since the assessee failed to deduct TDS on making payment to certain entities, the Assessing Officer disallowed 30% of the payment which comes to Rs. 4,05,631/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the facts and submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to examine and verify the details of investment made in the company as capital/premium as well as the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2184 /DEL/2025 Inner Chef Vs ACIT [A.Y 2017-18] Page 4 of 6 creditworthiness of the subscribers. Now the assessee is in appeal against the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the assessee had filed all the necessary documents and evidences and that the CIT(A) had no power to remit the matter for verification to the AO as the assessment was not made u/s 144. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of AO/CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO made the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and hence the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction under proviso to section 251(1)(a) in referring the issue of addition u/s 68 back to the AO for verification. We also find that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In such a factual matrix of the instant case, we deem it appropriate to remit the entire case to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh the issue of addition of share capital and premium u/s 68 and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) is directed to examine the documents/evidences submitted before him and if required seek an enquiry report from the AO for a fresh adjudication on the issues involved. Needless to add that the CIT(A) shall afford a Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2184 /DEL/2025 Inner Chef Vs ACIT [A.Y 2017-18] Page 5 of 6 reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. The assessee is likewise directed to cooperate and present evidences/documents as required by the concerned authorities. 9. In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No. 2184/DEL/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 08.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : October, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2184 /DEL/2025 Inner Chef Vs ACIT [A.Y 2017-18] Page 6 of 6 Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "