PARSEE LEASING AND FINVEST LIMITED,DELHI V. DCIT CC-6, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 3557/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 15,21,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was treated as unexplained cash credit following the assessee's trading in shares of M/s Negotium International Trade Ltd., a company implicated in providing accommodation entries. The ITAT found that the shares were part of the closing stock and the transactions were recorded in the normal course of business, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846883 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"ITA_3557_Del_2025_Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No. 3557/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited E-10, Prashant Vihar, Rohini- 85 Delhi Vs DCIT, Central Circle-6 Delhi PAN- AAACP6846N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sachin Jain, CA Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25 .03.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI: The above captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [for short, Ld. CIT(A)] dated 21.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessment was framed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2023. Printed from counselvise.com ITA_3557_Del_2025_Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds have been raised: “1. That the notice issued u/s 148A(b), order passed u/s 148A(d) and the notice issued u/s 148 correspondingly by the JAO is invalid and without jurisdiction and further proceedings in continuation to same also invalid and illegal. 2. That the assessment order passed u/s 147 by the Ld. AO and upheld by the CIT (A) deserves to be quashed since the same was passed without following the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various legal issues including jurisdictional issue and also barred by limitation. 3. That the assessment order passed u/s 147 by the Ld. AO and upheld by the CIT (A) deserves to be quashed since the same was passed without following the Principals of Natural Justice, settled law as declared by various Courts and without due application of mind. 4. That where the assessee company has suo- moto declared sale consideration of Rs. 15,21,000/- in respect of sale of the scrip M/s Negotium International Trade Limited in the return of income under 'Sales/Gross Receipts', the Id. CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the action of the Id. AO in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and consequently, treating the sale consideration of Rs. 15,21,000/- as unexplained cash credit under that section resulting in double taxation of the same amount. 5. hat under the facts and circumstances of the case, both the lower authorities failed to consider the detailed justification of the genuineness of transactions offered by the assessee company during the assessment proceedings as well as explanations and documentary evidences furnished to fulfill the three basic conditions to satisfy the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opportunity of cross examination was not provided despite requests made. Printed from counselvise.com ITA_3557_Del_2025_Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited 3 7. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, both the lower authorities erred in making and upholding the addition amounting to Rs. 15,21,000/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee company had filed its return for A.Y. 2018-19 on 04.09.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 1,40,88,210/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 17.02.2021 at returned income. Subsequently, information was received by the Ld. AO regarding bogus LTCG claim by taking accommodation entries from Negotium International Trade Limited Group which was searched on 10.01.2018. The information was uploaded on the insight portal based on which the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2022. Assessment was completed after making an addition of Rs. 15,21,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act on account of accommodation entries of sale of shares of M/s Negotium International Trade Ltd., a penny stock company. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2025. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA_3557_Del_2025_Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited 4 4. Before us, Ld. AR has not pressed the legal grounds no. 1 to 6 and has argued at length on merits. It has been submitted that the assessee is a registered NBFC and is engaged in trading of shares. The impugned amount of Rs. 15,21,000/- has already been reflected in its books of accounts as part of sales and therefore has been shown as part of the income. Accordingly, no further addition on this account should have been made. Further, the Ld. AO has wrongly held that the assessee has claimed bogus Long Term Capital Gains [for short, LTCG] in respect of the impugned transaction. It has been demonstrated that these shares were purchased in the earlier year and were part of the closing stock. Ld. AR has placed on record the details of closing stock wherein the shares of M/s Negotium International Trade Ltd. are reflected in the opening stock as on 01.04.2017. Further, copies of broker’s ledger account and bank account showing the impugned transactions have also been filed along with a copy of the demat account. In view of above facts, the Ld. AR has argued that the impugned transactions were made in the normal course of business and are duly accounted for in the books of accounts. The Ld. AO has also accepted the assessee’s books of accounts during 143(3) assessment as well as in re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Hence the addition of Rs. 15,21,000/- made u/s 68 deserves to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA_3557_Del_2025_Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited 5 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It has been submitted that the incriminating information was found during the course of search conducted on 10.01.2018 in the case of Nagpal Group which were engaged in providing accommodation entries through investment in scrip of M/s Negotium International Trade Ltd. which is a bogus/sham company. The assessee was found to have traded in the scrip of M/s Negotium International Trade Ltd. and generated non-genuine profit of Rs. 15,21,000/- during the year. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a NBFC duly registered with the RBI. It is carrying on business activities including trading in shares during the course of which impugned shares were purchased in F.Y. 2016-17 and sold during F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Requisite supporting documentary evidences regarding the transaction have been placed on record. Under these facts and circumstances, we hold that Ld. AO was not justified in holding that the sale transaction of Rs. 15,21,000/- was a non-genuine/ bogus accommodation entry. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 15,21,000/- u/s 68 is hereby deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA_3557_Del_2025_Parsee Leasing and Finvest Limited 6 7. As the addition has been deleted and the appeal is decided on merits, the remaining technical grounds and rendered academic and hence not being adjudicated. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 25.03.2026. Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "