IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Hiteshi Leasing and Housing Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad.

E – 335, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005.

(PAN : AAACH8298J)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Order : 15.10.2025

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 04.081.2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12 raising following grounds of appeal :-

“(A) That on the facts & circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A), while passing the order erred in:

a. Passing the Assessment Order dated 26.03.2015 u/s 153A despite the fact the Assessee was not searched and the Assessee was issued notice under section 153C on 29.1 1.2013. This is a jurisdictional error which renders the whole Assessment liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT (A) has also failed to apply his judicious mind and overlooked the fact that the Assessee was not a searched entity therefore section 153A was not applicable.

b. Completing assessment made under section 153A(I)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at an income of Rs.32,03,83,800/- as against income of Rs.23,83,800/- returned by the Appellant, treating share application/share capital received during the year of Rs.31,80,00,000/- from M/s. Arrow Distribution Private Limited, Golden Mercantile Limited, Pine View Investment Private Limited, and M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd as bogus/unexplained income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that the Appellant has fully discharged its onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons from whom application money has been received by submitting all the relevant documents.

c. Arbitrarily treating the share application/l capital as bogus despite independently verifying the transaction by calling information from the share applicant by recording the statement of directors of M/s. Arrow Distribution Private Limited, Golden Mercantile Limited,. Pine View Investment Private Limited and M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd on oath u/s 131 of Income Tax Act these transactions are genuine. They have even submitted relevant documents in support of the same.

d. Making addition of share application money/ share capital received from M/is. Arrow Distribution Private Limited. Golden Mercantile Limited, Pine View Investment Private Limited. and M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd merely on the basis of observation/ allegation by Investigation Wing. Delhi that one of the director of Shalini Holdings Limited is a relative of S.K. Jain who was allegedly engaged in the activities of providing accommodation entries whereas no paper was seized during the course of search operation and also on post search investigations made by the investigating officer as well as enquiries made by learned Assessing Officer, which suggests that share capital received by the Appellant company is accommodation entry.

e. Making these additions on the basis that the Directors of share applicant companies have failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the sources of funds during recording of statement u/s 131 of Income Tax Act although the Learned Assessing Officer only asked for the sources of funds and has never asked/ insisted on the furnishing of documentary evidences. Nevertheless these documentary evidences have been duly furnished by the appellant company during the course of assessment proceedings. It is pertinent to note that as per the prevailing law, for A Y 2011-12, Assessee was not required to prove "source of source" therefore, no negative inference could be drawn.

f. Not relying upon the judgment laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovel