IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/s Kuber Finance (I) Ltd. Vs ACIT, Cricle-14(2), Raj Kumar & Associates, Room No.323, 3^rd Floor, C.R.

Chartered Accountants, L-7A Building, New Delhi (LGF), South Extension Part-

II, New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No.AAACK4643A Assessee by Shri Raj Kumar CA &

Shri J P Sharma, Adv.

Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for Assessment Year 1997-98. The assessment order in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO]

under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. That under the facts and circumstances the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- is illegal and unsustainable in law as well as on merits.

1.1. Under the fats, the A.O. failed to carry out the specific directions of Hon'ble ITAT for examining as to whether Rs.80,00,000/- was recd. in A.Y.1996-97 and not in impugned A.Y. 1997-98, as claimed by the assessee, although all relevant information / material was in his records.

1.2 That Rs.80,00,000/- since not recd. in A.Y.1997-98 but in A.Y.1996-97, therefore cannot be considered in A.Y.1997-98 and also sec. 68 is not applicable as amount not recd. in impugned A.Y. 1997-98.

2. The impugned asstt. is barred by limitation.

3. That under the facts and circumstances no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed.

3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that there is delay in filing of appeal. Considering the explanation of the assessee that the delay is due to severe Covid pandemic, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.1 The ground 2 of assessment being barred by limitation is not pressed and hence dismissed as not pressed.

4. The core issue in the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs.80 lakh made under section 68 of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the amount of Rs.80 lakh was received in the previous year, in FY 1996-97, which is reflected in the bank of accounts of both the assessee and the lender. However, this amount of Rs.80 lakh was credited in the books of account on 01.04.1996 i.e. FY 1996-97, relevant to Assessment Year 1997-98. The ld. AR argued that since the funds was actually received in AY 1996-97, the addition, in AY 1997-98, under section 68 is not valid.

5. Per Contra, ld. CIT-DR submitted that under section 68, it is statutory requirement to consider unexplained funds in the year in which it is credited in the books of accounts. Therefore, addition under section 68 is valid.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the case has a history of travelling from AO till ITAT four times and that this is the fourth assessment made by the AO which is under contest. We find that the AO had considered share application money of Rs 80 lakh from four entities as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. In the previous round of litigation, the assessee has claimed that the said fund of Rs.80 lakh has been received as share application money from four parties in financial year 1995-96 relevant to AY 1996-97.Thereafter, the ITAT set aside the assessment to the file of the AO directing him to verify the year of receipt from the bank statement. The AO, in consequence, reiterated the said addition u/s 68 in the instant year i.e., AY 1997-98.

7. We find that the such a claim of receipt of share application money and the creditworthiness of the investor companies has not been substantiated by