ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM.

The appellant revenue has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by ld CIT(A) in appeal No NFAC/2008-09/10236291, wherein ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act vide assessment order dated 17.03.2023 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3)/254 of the Act.

This is second round of litigation. Briefly speaking, the background is the assessee, being an individual did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in M/s Triveni Group on 29.09.2010. Assessee was also included in the search. Notice u/s. 153A was issued in response to which the assessee did not file any return. Later on, assessee filed return on 10.12.2012, declaring total income at Rs. 6,240/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.12.2012. Assessment proceedings u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act were competed on 25.03.2013 determining the income at Rs. 2,44,13,240/-, after making addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank beside other addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80C of the Act.

Assessee preferred appeal before ld CIT(A), who partly allowed assessee’s appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- and sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed u/s 80C of the Act.

Aggrieved, revenue, preferred appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi. The tribunal, vide order dated 26.03.2018, passed in ITA No 5511&5512/Del/2014, set aside the issue of the aforesaid addition to the file of the A.O. with the direction to assessee to show the creditworthiness and genuineness of the said transaction with credible evidence and reasons for travelling such amount of cash from the company to the promoter and parties with whom share purchase agreement was entered. It was further directed by the tribunal that the assessee must also relate the cash deposit datewise with the cash received from the parties. After considering the assessee’s reply, ld A.O. passed the assessment order dated 17.03.2023 u/s 153 A r.w.s. 143(3)/254 of the Act, repeating the original addition in this second appeal.

Assessee preferred first appeal before ld CIT(A) in this second round of litigation, wherein ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- which was added u/s. 68 of the Act and also quashed the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act.

Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

“1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 made by the A.O on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, hence the order of the Ld.CIT(A) suffers from serious infirmities in appreciation of facts and law resulting in deleting of a validly made addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 u/s 68 of the Act and therefore the same to deserves to be restored.

2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus under section 68 merely by producing self generated cash flow statements and unverified confirmations, without establishing actual cash movement date- wise correlation OR independent third party verification.

3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the directions on the Hon’ble ITAT dated 10.08.2022 specifically required the assessee to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the alleged cash received with credible evidence and date-wise correlation between the receipts and deposits which the assessee failed to do. The Ld.CIT(A) ignored this mandate and accepted the explanation without such verification.

4. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the tr