ULTERIOR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 27(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3350/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Ulterior Holdings Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi, which upheld the assessment order treating loans received by the assessee totaling Rs.8,95,50,500 as unexplained cash credits under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including income tax returns, confirmations, and evidence of repayments from the parties involved in the loan transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had sufficiently proven the legitimacy of the loans, leading to the allowance of the appeal and deletion of the impugned addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847181 (ITAT-NEW DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3350/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Ulterior Holdings Pvt. Ltd., C-168, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), New Delhi PAN: AAACU9745R (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 16.08.2018 passed in case no. 543/16-17, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Arpit Goyal, CA Department by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3350/Del/2019 2 | P a g e 2. We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating its loan received totaling to Rs.8,95,50,500/- in the relevant previous year as unexplained cash credits; in assessment order dated 31.12.2016 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the asssessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement stands against and in support of the impugned addition. A perusal of the learned CIT(A)’s detailed lower appellate discussion at page 4 indicates that the assessee had inter alia received three sums of Rs.75 lakhs, Rs.11,81,77,500/- and Rs. 25 lakhs from M/s. Azofen Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Gurmeet Singh and M/s. Janak Nandani Arora; respectively. There is further no denial to the fact that apart from the above first and third loan amounts both the learned lower authorities inter alia considered the assessee’s opening balance of Rs.7,25,93,790/- regarding Mr. Gurmeet Singh as well as repayment thereof to the tune of Rs.3,86,27,000; to adopt the netting for the purpose of making the impugned addition(s). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3350/Del/2019 3 | P a g e 4. That being the case, learned senior counsel reiterates the assessee’s stand all along that it had duly filed all the relevant details of all these three parties’ respective income tax returns, confirmations, evidence of repayments all along which have nowhere been rebutted on facts. The Revenue, on the other hand, seeks to buttress the point that mere filing of such documentary evidence does not absolve the assessee from discharging its onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness thereof going by Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions supporting the impugned addition. We make it clear that once the learned lower authorities have themselves accepted the assessee’s opening balance regarding the second party amounting to Rs.7,25,93,790/- as genuine in the preceding assessment years, the same could not be allowed to be assessed as unexplained in the relevant previous year. We further observe at the cost of repetition that they have adopted “netting” method than having treated the entire sum as bogus one in the assessee’s Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3350/Del/2019 4 | P a g e hands. The factual position regarding the assessee’s remaining twin parties, namely, M/s Azofen Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Janak Nandani Arora is hardly any different since the only exception in their cases as that the twin corresponding sums stood received and repaid in the same year. 6. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop and in light of the assessee’s overwhelming supportive evidence that it has duly discharged the onus of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of all of its three unsecured loans forming subject matter of addition. The same stands deleted accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th March, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "