IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI.

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2737/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14)

Atul Bansal, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi.

New Delhi – 110 038.

(PAN: AGCPB1274F)

ITA No.2803/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14)

ACIT, Central Circle 16, vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038.

(PAN: AGCPB1274F)

ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date of Order : 06.02.2026

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. These cross appeals are filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘ld. CIT (A)’) dated 16.02.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order.

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, we proceeded to hear the case with the assistance of Ld. DR.

4. First we take up the appeal of revenue in ITA No.2803/Del/2017 for AY

2013-14

5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed his return of income on 01.03.2014 declaring income of Rs.55,11,320/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS(Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) for the reason of selection is “Large Deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA and Large interest expenses relatable to exempt investment u/s 14A.”

6. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as caller for. After considering the submissions made by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has provided loans and advances to the following entities in which assessee has substantial interest. The details are as under:

7. By referring to the above chart, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to explain why the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned amount of Rs.71,08,35,311/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act with the observation that assessee had not filed relevant supporting documentary evidence to explain the above issue.

8. Further, he observed from the record submitted by the assessee that assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. He asked the assessee to furnish the details of copy of registered deeds regarding the sale and purchase of the house property during the year along with proof of expenses incurred on the improvement of the property. Further, assessee was asked to furnish relevant document to justify exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to furnish above said evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee.

9. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.

CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi. During the first appellate proceedings, assessee has filed the detailed submissions relating to transactions with the relevant concerns, also submitted actual percentage of shareholding in all those entities, also relevant advances paid to those entities and made a detailed submissions by the above said amounts remitted to the relative concerns and prayed that the loans are not fall under the provisions of deemed dividend u/s

2(22)(e) of the Act.

10. Further, assessee has submitted a chart indicating the position of reserves and surpluses at the year end and advances given to those entities before the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was reproduced in the impugned order. Further assessee also submitted additional evidences in support of the above submissions.

11. After considering the detailed submissio