IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11]

DCIT, vs P& R Engineering Services Circle-19(1), Pvt.Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak New Delhi Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

PAN-AACCP0484E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Assessee by Shri V. K.Agarwal, AR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi -31 [CIT(A), in short] dated 01.11.2024 in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-7/10212/2017-18 arising out of the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act, in short] for A.Y. 2010-11.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 27.09.2010, declaring loss of Rs. 12,89,624/-. The case of the assessee was reopened in terms of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.09.2017. In response, the assessee has declared the same income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter the AO by alleging that the assessee has received share application money of Rs. 8,28,45,000/- from three companies namely, M/s Mansarovar Holdings Ltd. Rs. 4,09,00,000/-, M/s Olipha Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 3,27,10,000/- and from M/s Sopan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 92,35,000/- which companies are paper companies and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the entire amount of loan received from these three companies.

3. Against the said order, assessee preferred an appeal against CIT(A) who deleted the additions made in terms of order dated 01.11.2024.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:

1. “Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A), has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,28,45,500/- for AY 2010-11 on account of unexplained share application money received u/s 68 of the I.T. Act made by AO though the assessee could not prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions during the course of assessment proceedings.

2. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and or deleted or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal.”

5. Before us, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the order of the AO and submits that AO received an information from the Investigation Wing, Chandigarh that the assessee has taken huge amount of share premium and share capital from these three companies which are paper companies and controlled and managed for providing accommodation entries. The ld. DR further submits that there were statements recorded of one Shri Pankaj Agarwal by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein he has accepted that these companies were used for providing accommodation entries. He further submits that from the perusal of financial statements of these companies, it could be seen that they are showing meagre income and therefore has no creditworthiness and accordingly the amount of share capital and premium received from these companies remained unexplained and the AO has rightly made the addition for the same u/s

68 of the Act which order deserves to be restored. He prayed accordingly.

6. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and submits that in case of Sopan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and Olipha Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd., additions were made by making similar allegations in preceding assessment years i.e. AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 which were deleted by the CIT(A) and said orders were confirmed by the coordinate Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 4773/Del/2018 and 4774/Del/2018 for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively vide order dated 09.11.2023. With regard to the third company M/s Mansarovar Holdings Ltd., he submits that the addition with respect to the application money received from th