"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री ब्रजेश क ुमार स िंह, लेखाकार सिस्य क े समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7118/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2016-17) ITA No.7118/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) My Taxi India P. Ltd., Plot No. 27, 3rd Flor, Pocket 14, Sector 24, Rohini, Rithala, B.O Rohini, North West Delhi, Delhi-110085 PAN: AAICM-7328-J ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Delhi .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant by: S/Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Ayush Garg & Ms. Knishka Garg, Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through VC) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 24/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 24/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.09.2025, for AY 2016-17. 2. Shri Ved Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a start-up duly recognized by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and was set up for providing passenger taxi services for local, intercity and inter-state travel. The assessee also provides travel package including hotel accommodation Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.7118/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) and allied services. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring loss of Rs.2,42,25,874/-. The assessee maintains regular books of account which are dully audited. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the source of share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.3,81,04,132/- received by the assessee during the relevant period. The Counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee has received share capital through private placements. The share capital and share premium was received by the assessee from following investors:- S. No. Investor Shares Share price Share premium Total Amount 1 Shri Mohit Rajpal 125 ₹10 NIL 1250/- 2 GHVH Pte Ltd., Singapore 2,839 ₹2,195.95 ₹63,23,952 63,52,882/- 3 Nihon Kotsu Co. Ltd., Japan 762 ₹41,666.57 ₹3,17,41,380 3,17,50,000/- Total 3,780 ₹3,80,66,332 3,81,04,132/- 3. The assessee in order to substantiate the source of investments furnished, bank statements evidencing receipt of share capital and share premium though banking channel, Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates issued by the bank, Foreign Currency-Gross Provisional Return filed with RBI and Form PAS-3 filed by ROC for allotment of shares to the investors. Though, the assessee had furnished various documents to explain source of share capital and share premium, the AO doubted the source of investment on the ground that there is difference in share premium paid by two foreign investors and made addition of Rs.3,81,02,882/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 13.12.2018, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). During First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished further evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.7118/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) 1962. The document furnished by the assessee as additional evidences before the CIT(A) inter alia includes:- • Tax fling statement of both the investors; • Balance sheet of the both the investors; • Bank statement of respective investors; • Copy of Form PAS-4 which provides information of potential investors; • Extract of minutes of meetings of the Board of Directors: • Copy of resolution passed at Extraordinary General Meeting; & • Copy of Form PAS-5, records maintained by the assessee. 4. The CIT(A) records submissions of the assessee and the documents furnished but without seeking remand report on the additional evidences filed by the assessee passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner upholding additions made by the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that a directions may be given to the Authorities below to examine the document furnished by the assessee and thereafter, pass the order or a remand report may be sought by the Tribunal from the AO and decide the issue. 5. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department defending the impinged order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions. Thus, the AO made additions of the amounts received as alleged share capital and share premium. 6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) though have recorded the detailed submissions of the assessee and also the fact of assessee filing various documents Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.7118/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) as additional evidences but neither the CIT(A) has examined the documents furnished by the assessee as additional evidences nor any remand report was sought from the AO on the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. The CIT(A) has merely discussed various case laws and has thereafter, dismissed appeal of the assessee. The findings of CIT(A) on the issue of addition u/s.68 of the Act are cryptic, hence, unsustainable. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered view that the matter needs re-examination. The matter is restored to the AO for examination of the documents furnished by the assessee before the CIT(A) as additional evidences and also any other relevant document furnished by the assessee in discharge of its onus u/s.68 of the Act. The AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee and thereafter frame assessment denovo, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 24th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली / Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 27/02/2026 NV/- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.7118/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., सिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "