MPCL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 5636/DEL/2025

AI Insights

MPCL Industries Ltd. appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax's assessment for the year 2012-13. The primary contention was the legality of the reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the validity of the additions made on account of alleged accommodation entries. The Tribunal examined the procedural and substantive aspects of the reassessment and the evidence provided by both parties. The Tribunal noted that similar transactions in the previous year were assessed at a lower net profit rate, which was not contested by the revenue, and decided to apply the same rate for the current assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841029 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANEESH UPNEJA
• Keywords: Onus to prove; Accommodation entries
• Section: 148; 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.5636/Del/2025 MPCL Industries Ltd. (AY: 2012-130 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5636/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-13) MPCL Industries Ltd. 904, 9th Floor, Krishna Apra Business Square, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitmpura, New Delhi – 110034 Vs. The DCIT, Circle 17(2) CR Building, ITO, IP Estate, New Delhi – 110002 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AABCM0054E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by: Sh. Maneesh Upneja, CA Sh. Baldev Raj, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 23.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No.5636/Del/2025 MPCL Industries Ltd. (AY: 2012-130 (hereinafter referred as the ‘First Appellate Authority’), Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078793393(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] passed by the ACIT, Circle, Hisar for AY: 2012-13. 2. Heard both the parties. Case filed perused. 3. This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: “1. That on the facts and in law, the Assessment order dt. 10.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. Assessing Officer\" or \"Ld. A.O.\"] u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"] and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"] vide order dt. 23.07.2025 is bad at law & facts and is void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), erred in endorsing the Ld. Assessing Officer exercising the jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act. 2.1 That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that: a) on perusal of reason recorded for issue of notice u/s 148, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has exercised his authority according to its own discretion.\" b) The information available with the Assessing Officer was sufficient for recording of satisfaction that income has escaped the assessment for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and does not require any independent inquiry. c) There is no anomaly to reopen the case for reassessment as income has escaped the assessment. 2.2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), erred in not considered the Appellant objections/ground of appeal that Ld. AO did not Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No.5636/Del/2025 MPCL Industries Ltd. (AY: 2012-130 a) Supplying the copy of information relied upon and b) Provided the copy of approval granted by Pr. CIT, New Delhi. 3. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition to the tune of Rs. 1,78,23,200/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer on account accommodation entries received from M/s Radhey Shyam Murari Lal and Co. and M/s Shree Shyam Overseas. 3.1 That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erroneously observed / holding the following which is against the facts on record: a) The Appellant have not made any effort to justify the sales transactions with the documents b) It was duty of the Appellant to prove the sales with quantitative tally with purchases than there shall not be any doubt in respect of purchases, but in assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings the appellant failed to explain the sales. c) The Appellant had not filed date-wise, truck-wise and challan-wise details of supply etc. the Appellant had also not able to explain that from which parties they have made purchases for sale of these items in which they never transacted. d) The Appellant had neither produced stock register nor were purchases соrelated with the sales disclosed in the books e) The Appellant have not explained the sales with supporting documents (list of documents compiled by the Id. CIT(A) in para no 7.7), thus the Appellant have failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue i.e. genuineness of sales. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred upholding the levying the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to others. That the appellant carves the right to add, modify, amend and delete the grounds of appeal during the course of the hearing.” 4. Learned Counsel at the very outset presses for the assessee’s 6th & 7th substantive grounds directed against the addition of Rs.1,78,23,200/- made by both the lower authorities treating the same as an accommodation entry only. It further transpires that the Assessing Officer Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 assessment framed in the assessee’s case (page 6 to 14 in the paper book) in Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No.5636/Del/2025 MPCL Industries Ltd. (AY: 2012-130 preceding Assessment Year 2011-12 has admittedly assessed it @ 3% NP only involving similar transactions which has gone unrebutted from the revenue side. 5. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that once the Assessing authority had assessed the assessee’s identical transaction @ 3% qua the NP involved therein, larger interest of justice that the very course needs to be adopted herein as well. We order accordingly. Learned Assessing Officer is directed to frame his consequential assessment in very terms. Not to be treated as a precedent. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026 Sd/- (Naveen Chandra) Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 26.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA No.5636/Del/2025 MPCL Industries Ltd. (AY: 2012-130 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "