Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee filed two appeals against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi, both dated 29.03.2025, concerning Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal decided both appeals through a common order as they involved the same assessee and common issues.
For A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee had originally declared a total loss of Rs.71,684/-. The assessment was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing alleging rotation of substantial funds without economic rationale and transactions of Rs.39,27,750/- with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. The reasons recorded for reopening treated those transactions as accommodation entries and recorded alleged escapement of income on that basis. However, the reassessment order made no addition concerning M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. Instead, an addition of Rs.1,99,12,000/- under section 68 was made concerning consideration received from three companies on sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal relied upon the Delhi High Court’s decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT and the Bombay High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.. It held that where no addition is made on the issue forming the basis of reopening, the Assessing Officer could not sustain additions on issues outside the recorded reasons. The reassessment order dated 28.03.2022 was therefore held without jurisdiction and quashed.
For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee challenged additions of Rs.12,00,000/- received from M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.1,45,00,000/- received on sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd., both treated as unexplained credits under section 68. The Tribunal found that the identity and creditworthiness of M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. were established through confirmations, income-tax return and bank statements and deleted the Rs.12,00,000/- addition. In relation to the Rs.1,45,00,000/- share-sale consideration, the Tribunal found that the assessee had established the identity of the buyer and held that the consideration received for the sale of shares could not be treated as unexplained credit under section 68. Both appeals were allowed.
Assessment Year 2016-17
Facts and Reassessment Proceedings
The assessee filed its return of income on 07.10.2016 declaring a total loss of Rs.71,684/-. The case was reopened pursuant to notice issued on 30.03.2021 under section 148 based on information received from the Investigation Wing.
The information allegedly indicated that the assessee was involved in rotation of substantial funds without economic rationale and had undertaken transactions of Rs.39,27,750/- with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction alleging that these transactions were accommodation entries and that income had escaped assessment.
The reassessment order dated 28.03.2022 under section 147/143(3), however, did not make any addition concerning M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. Instead, an addition of Rs.1,99,12,000/- was made under section 68 in respect of consideration received from M/s Khan Kinetic Treatment (P) Ltd. of Rs.65,50,000/-, M/s Youl Production (1) Pvt Ltd of Rs.68,12,000/- and M/s Thapar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd of Rs.65,50,000/- on sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt Ltd.
Assessee’s Challenge to Reassessment
The assessee contended that the reasons recorded before reopening related to the alleged transaction of Rs.39,27,750/- with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. No addition was made in respect of that transaction in the reassessment order.
The assessee therefore challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition under section 68 concerning the sale of shares, contending that the addition was not based on the reason for which the assessment had been reopened.
Tribunal’s Finding on Reassessment Jurisdiction
The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded for reopening and the reassessment order. It observed that the reasons concerned the alleged transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd., which had been treated as rotation of money and accommodation entries.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment order contained no reference to the transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. and that no addition was made on that account. Instead, the addition under section 68 concerned the sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd. to three companies.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not go beyond the recorded reasons and make an addition on an issue which did not form part of those reasons where no addition had been made on the issue forming the basis of reopening.
Reliance on Judicial Precedents
The Tribunal relied upon the Delhi High Court decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Dehi), as reproduced in the supplied order.
The Tribunal also followed the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay). It held that the reassessment order passed by making additions beyond the recorded reasons, where no addition was made on the reason recorded for initiating reassessment, was without jurisdiction.
Reassessment Order Quashed
Applying those decisions, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions concerning issues that did not form part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
The reassessment order passed under section 147/143(3) dated 28.03.2022 was therefore held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed. Ground No. 3 was allowed.
Since the legal ground challenging the reassessment jurisdiction had already been allowed, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the remaining grounds concerning the merits of the additions.
Assessment Year 2017-18
Facts and Assessment
For A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,10,662/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 17.12.2019.
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.12,00,000/- under section 68 in respect of funds received from M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. A further addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was made under section 68 in respect of consideration received from M/s Vandam Technologies Private Limited on sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd.
The total income was assessed at Rs.1,58,10,662/-. The AO also made a protective addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- as short-term capital gains, stating that it would become substantive if the section 68 addition was deleted by the appellate authorities.
The CIT(A), by order dated 29.03.2025, confirmed both additions under section 68 and deleted the protective addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- as short-term capital gains.
Rs.12 Lakh Received from Navyuga Consultancy
The assessee submitted that the identity and creditworthiness of the parties had been established by filing confirmations and acknowledgements of their returns of income.
The assessee further submitted that the assessment of M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2017-18 had been completed under section 143(3), wherein the income declared by that company was accepted and no adverse inference was drawn concerning the amount given to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed confirmations and copies of income-tax returns, thereby establishing the identity of both parties. It further noted that Rs.12,00,000/- had been received from M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. through banking channels and that the bank statement showed sufficient balance when the funds were transferred.
The Tribunal also noted that M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. had filed its return declaring total income of Rs.83,25,176/-, which had been accepted by the Department in the assessment completed under section 143(3).
On these facts, the Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. were established. The amount of Rs.12,00,000/- therefore could not be held as unexplained cash credit, and the addition was deleted.
Rs.1.45 Crore Share Sale Consideration
The second substantive addition for A.Y. 2017-18 was Rs.1,45,00,000/- received from M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd., which had been treated as unexplained credit under section 68.
The Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee had received premium of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and had not furnished a valuation report supporting valuation of the shares of M/s Prominent Agencies Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.300/- per share.
The Tribunal observed that if the Assessing Officer had doubts concerning the value of the shares sold by the assessee, the addition should have been made under section 56(2). However, the AO had made the addition by treating the sale consideration as an unexplained cash credit under section 68.
The assessee had filed the confirmation and bank statement of M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for the relevant period and also filed its income-tax return to establish the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the buyer.
The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had sold the shares to M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.300/- per share, the same price at which the assessee had purchased them, and therefore no profit or loss arose to the assessee from the sale.
Valuation of Shares
The assessee had submitted before the CIT(A) that the value of the shares was Rs.38.21 per share under the Net Asset Value method. The order reproduced the Explanation to section 56(2)(viib), under which the fair market value of shares was the value determined under the prescribed method or the value substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on the value of its assets, including specified intangible assets, whichever was higher.
The Tribunal observed that the fair market value was to be taken on the basis of either of the two values, whichever was higher. In the case before it, the shares were sold at Rs.300/- per share, while the value under the NAV method was Rs.38.21 per share.
On the basis of the reasoning recorded in the order, the Tribunal held that no addition could be made on that basis.
Deletion of Section 68 Addition
The Tribunal held that once it was admitted that the amount was consideration received from the sale of shares owned by the assessee, no addition could be made under section 68 by treating the amount as unexplained credit, particularly when the identity of the buyer had been established.
The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the alternate addition of Rs.1.45 crores made by the AO as short-term capital gains and that the Revenue had not filed an appeal against that deletion.
Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- under section 68 was deleted and Ground No. 2 was allowed.
Final Decision
For A.Y. 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was without jurisdiction because no addition was made on the issue forming the basis of the recorded reasons for reopening, while the addition ultimately made concerned a different issue. The reassessment order under section 147/143(3) dated 28.03.2022 was quashed.
For A.Y. 2017-18, the Tribunal deleted the Rs.12,00,000/- addition under section 68 relating to M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and the Rs.1,45,00,000/- addition under section 68 relating to sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd.
In the final result, both appeals of the assessee, ITA No. 2791/DEL/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 and ITA No. 2792/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18, were allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2026.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Dehi) — Delhi High Court.
- CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) — Bombay High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned two appeals are filed by the Assessee against two separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi, both dated 29.03.2025 arising out of the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2016-17 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 28.03.2022 and for Assessment Year 2017-18 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2019.
2. Since, both the appeals are of one assessee and having common issues, therefore, they are taken together and decided by a common order.
3. First we take ITA No.2791/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 07.10.2016 declaring total loss of Rs.71,684/-. The case of the assessee was reopened in terms of notice issued on 30.03.2021 u/s 148 based on the information received from Investigation Wing that assessee has allegedly involved in rotation of huge amount of funds without any economic rational and during the year had made transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 39,27,750/-. Accordingly, satisfaction was recorded by the AO by alleging that transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. are accommodation entries which has escaped assessment. Thereafter the reassessment order was passed on 28.03.2022 u/s 147/143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.1,99,12,000/- towards sale consideration received from M/s Khan Kinetic Treatment (P) Ltd (Rs. 65,50,000/-), M/s Youl Production (1) Pvt Ltd (Rs. 68,12,000/-) and M/s Thapar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (Rs. 65,50,000/-) on the sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt Ltd by treating the same as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
5. Against the said order, appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 29.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the “Act”) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he has not justified to uphold the validity of the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, NFAC resorting to reassessment proceeding and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act since the same is bad in law in as much as but not limited to the fact that the addition was not made on the reason on which the case was reopened u/s 148.
2. That the order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, NFAC in adding back a sum of Rs. 1,99,12,000/- in respect of credit received from M/s Khan Kinetic Treatment (P) Ltd (Rs. 65,50,000/-), M/s Youl Production (1) Pvt Ltd (Rs. 68,12,000/- and M/s Thapar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (Rs. 65,50,000/-) on account of sale proceeds of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt Ltd by treating the same as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that no justification for sale of the shares at such high price is furnished despite specific query in this regard by ignoring the fact that complete details and exhaustive evidence with respect to the said transaction was duly filed in the course of (re)assessment proceedings and that the amounts received are not in the nature of cash credits but on account of sale of shares.
3. That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
7. Heard both the parties and peruse the material available on record. In Ground of Appeal No.3, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.1,99,12,000/- made by AO by alleging that the consideration received from three companies from the sale of shares as accommodation entry. The claim of the assessee was that in the reasons recorded before reopening the assessment u/s 147, satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income to the extent of Rs.39,27,750/- being rotation of money through transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. which were alleged as accommodation entry, however, no addition whatsoever was made on this account in the reassessment order passed and the consideration received from the sale of shares was added as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. The reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 as available at pages 35 to 38 of the PB are reproduced herein below:
–
–
8. From the perusal of the reasons as reproduced above, it is observed that the reasons were recorded before reopening of the case of the assessee for the alleged transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. and based on this allegation, AO concluded that these transaction are rotation of money and, accordingly satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income of the transaction of Rs. 39,27,750/- carried out by the assessee company with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. However, from the perusal of the reassessment order, we observed that in the assessment order, there is no whisper of the transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. nor any addition was made for the alleged transactions with M/s Concise Exim, which was made the sole basis for initiating reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. In the reassessment order, addition is made u/s 68 of the Act for the consideration received from the sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd. from three companies by alleging the same as accommodation entries. Since, the AO has not made any addition with respect to the satisfaction recorded in the reasons recorded of the transaction with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd., the AO has no jurisdiction to go beyond the reasons recorded and cannot made the addition on the issue which are not forming part of the reasons recorded.
9. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Dehi) has held as under:
“In the present case, as is noted above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the justifications given by the assessee regarding the items viz. club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment, but, however, during the assessment proceedings, he found the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-1 as claimed by the assessee to be not admissible. He consequently while not making additions on those items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc. proceeded to make deductions under sections 80HH and 80-1 and accordingly reduced the claim on these accounts.
The very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were recorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-1 which as per our discussion was not permissible. Had the Assessing Officer proceeded not to make disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then in view of our discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-ID as well.
In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. Consequently, we answer the first part of question in affirmative in favour of revenue and the second part of the question against the revenue.”
10. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) has also expressed the same view. Thus, by respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and of the hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein it is held that the reassessment order passed by making additions beyond the reasons recorded is without jurisdiction when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings. In the instant case, as observed above, the additions were made for the issues not forming part of the reasons recoded and no addition was made for the issue raised in the reason for reopening the assessment thus, we hold that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction and made the additions beyond the satisfaction of escapement of income. Therefore, the reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) dt. 28.03.2022 is without jurisdiction and is quashed. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No. 3 of the assessee is allowed.
11. Since we have already allowed the legal ground of appeal No.3 taken by the assessee, the other grounds of appeal taken on merits of the additions are not adjudicated.
12. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2791/Del/2025 for AY 201617 is allowed.
ITA No.2792/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18
13. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.1,10,662/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2019 wherein the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of funds received from M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and further Rs.1,45,00,000/- received from the sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Vandam Technologies Private Limited as unexplained credits and made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,58,10,662/-. The AO further made protective addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-as short term capital gains with the observation that it will become substantive addition in case addition u/s 68 is deleted by the appellate authorities.
14. Against the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 29.03.2025, has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, wherein both the additions u/s 68 were confirmed and protective addition made as short term capital gains was deleted.
15. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Income Taxх Department, NFAC in adding back a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-received from M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt Ltd by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and applying the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act thereto.
2. That the order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, NFAC in adding back a sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-received from M/s Prominent Agency Pvt Ltd on account of sale of shares by treating the same as an alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and applying the provisions of Section 115BВЕ of the Act thereto.
3. That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
16. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The claim of the assessee is that during the course of reassessment proceedings, identity and creditworthiness of both the parties were established by filing their confirmations and the acknowledge of their return of income. The Ld. AR of the assessee further claims that in the case of M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. the assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein after considering the facts of the case, income declared was accepted and no adverse interference was drawn with respect to the amount given to assessee company. We observed that by filing the confirmations and copy of ITR, assessee has proved the identity of both the parties. The assessee has received of Rs.12,00,000/- from M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, through banking channel and the copy of the bank statements of the said parties is also filed. From the perusal of the bank statements, it is observed that there was sufficient balance available while transferring the funds to the assessee. Besides this, the company M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. has filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.83,25,176/- and the said income stood accepted by the Department in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Looking to these facts, in our considered opinion, the identity as well as creditworthiness of the company M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. is established and, therefore, the amount received from the said company cannot be held as unexplained cash credit and, thus, the addition made on this account is hereby deleted. Ground of appeal No.1 of the assessee is allowed.
17. Regarding addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/-, being consideration received from the sale of shares of M/s Prominent Agency Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. alleged as unexplained credit, the Assessing Officer in para 8 of the order observed that has received premium of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and no valuation report was filed for valuation of shares of M/s. Prominent Agencies Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.300/- per shares. In case the AO has doubts about the value of the shares sold by the assessee, the addition should have been made in section 56(2) however, the AO has made the addition by treating the said sale consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act which stood confirmed by ld. CIT(A). It is further observed that in order to establish the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the buyer namely M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd., assessee filed its confirmation and bank statement for the relevant period when funds were transferred to assessee and also filed copy of its ITR. It is further observed that assessee has sold shares to M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. which were purchased by it for Rs. 300/- only thus, no profit nor any loss was occurred to the assessee from the sale of shares of Prominent Agency (P) Ltd. The assessee submits before the ld. CIT(A) that the value of the shares sold was worked out at Rs.38.21 per share and as per Explanation to section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, fair market value of the shares is defined which reads as under:-
56 (1)…
(2) (viib)
(Explanation For the purposes of this clause,-
(a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value–
i. as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed;
or
ii. as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or my other business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher;
18. From the above, it is evident that the fair market value is to be taken either of the two “whichever is higher”. In the instant case, the assessee has sold the shares at Rs. 300/- per share whereas according to the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, it comes to Rs. 38.21 per share. Since, the sale price is higher than the valuation as per NAV, in terms of Explanation to clause (viib) to sub-section (2) to section 56 of the Act no addition could be made.
19. Once it is admitted that the said sum of Rs. 1.50 crores was the consideration received by the assessee from the sale of shares owned by it, no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act by treating the same unexplained credit more particularly when the assessee has been able to establish the identity of the buyer. Since, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the alternate addition made by the AO as Short term capital gains of Rs. 1.45 crores and no appeal is filed by the revenue against the same, the issue of treating the sale consideration of such sale as unexplained does not arise. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is thus allowed.
20. In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 2792/DEL/2025 is allowed.
21. In the final result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 2791/DEL/2025 for AY 2016-17 and ITA No. 2792/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18 are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court 13.02.2026.
