UMA STRIPS LIMITED,DELHI V. CIRCLE 27(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4166/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Uma Strips Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues were the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the addition of Rs.42 crores as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment but found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the source of the cash credits, leading to a reduction in the addition from Rs.42 crores to Rs.1 crore.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842315 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ MANGLA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4166/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Uma Strips Ltd., 1171, 4th Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi Vs. Circle-27(1), Delhi PAN: AAACU2078B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 19.06.2025 passed in case no CIT(A), Delhi-9 10573/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA Ms. Krishna Yadav, CA Department by Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.12.2025 and 26.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 26.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4166/Del/2025 2 | P a g e Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. The assessee/appellant herein raises as many as ten substantive grounds inter alia challenging validity of the impugned reopening as well as seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action making section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.42 crores; in assessment order dated 27.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands on the foregoing twin issues. We notice from a perusal of the case records at pages 157 to 159 that the Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to believe going by the assessee’s cash deposits, remittances from Hongkong and J.R. Rice in India Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.42 crores, 14.2 crores, 0.90 crores; respectively, totalling to Rs.57.12 crores, as having escaped assessment. Learned counsel submits that not only the said reopening reasons had been wrongly recorded but also the prescribed authority nowhere approved the same as per law under section 151 of the Act (pages 155 to 156 in the case records). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4166/Del/2025 3 | P a g e 4. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive ground for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer had indeed taken into consideration the foregoing tangible material whilst recording his reason which stood duly approved as well. The assessee fails in the instant first and foremost legal argument in very terms. 4. Next comes the latter issue on merits qua section 68 addition of Rs.42 crores (cash sales of Rs.41.78 crores + VAT). Learned counsel invites our attention to page 83 in the paper-book duly admitting the source thereof as cash sales in bullion trading business activity to the tune of Rs. 41,78,77,701/-. His case, therefore, is that the impugned addition is not sustainable once the assessee has filed its duly audited books of account to the very effect. 5. That being the case, we find only a part merit in the assessee’s foregoing submission. We deem it appropriate to clarify here that it has not successfully discharged its onus of reconciliation and verification of the impugned cash credits as forming part of its cash sales to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. We are further mindful of the fact that once its principal business Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4166/Del/2025 4 | P a g e activity of bullion trading etc. is not in dispute and the corresponding purchases stand accepted, the necessary prima facie inference would indeed arise in its favour that these cash deposits represent the cash sales although not successfully proved in both the lower proceedings. Be that as it my, we are of the considered view keeping in view the totality of all these facts that, a lumpsum further addition of Rs.1 crores herein would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.41 crores in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th February, 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 "