+W.p.(C) 5782/2025 And Cm Appls v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-13(1

$~46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 5782/2025 and CM APPLs. 26372-74/2025LORD FINCAP LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Amol Sinha with Mr Kshitiz Gargand Mr Ankit Kumar, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC with MsNaincy Jain and Ms Madhavi Shukla,JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R%02.05.2025 1.Issue notice. 2.The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 3.ThepetitionerhasfiledthepresentpetitionchallenginganAssessment Order dated 24.03.2025 [impugned assessment order] passedby the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [Act] read with Section 143(3) of the Act. The AO added an amountof ₹13,43,45,000/- to the petitioner’s declared income for Assessment Year 2019-20. The said addition included an amount of ₹10,00,000/- which according to the AO was an accommodation entry. The balance amount of₹13,33,45,000/- was added on account of aggregate cash deposited in the petitioner’s bank account maintained with Jammu & Kashmir Bank whichaccording to the AO, remained unexplained. 4.The impugned assessment order was passed pursuant to reassessmentproceedings that were initiated by issuance of a notice dated 28.03.2023under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The said notice culminated in an orderdated 12.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and pursuant tothe said order, a notice dated 12.04.2023 was issued under Section 148 ofthe Act. 5.The petitioner is a Non-Banking Financial Company and isengaged in the business of advancing loans. The petitioner claims that it hasa portfolio of loans advanced to customers for purchase of motorcycles andtwo wheelers. The cash deposited in its bank accounts relates largely to theinstallments paid by its customers for serving the loans advanced by thepetitioner. 6.The petitioner claims that it had furnished a tabular statement settingout the details of the loan accounts; the relevant code assigned to the saidloan accounts; the customers names; the amount deposited in the bankaccount of the petitioner; and, the nature of the receipt. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention ofthis court to the said tabular statement, a copy of which is annexed to thepresent petition. The petitioner has also filed receipt vouchers clearlyindicating the name of the customers; the amount received as well as thereference to the loan agreement. Additionally, the petitioner has provided asample copy of the loan agreement which, apart from other details, alsobears the photograph of the borrower. The learned counsel for the petitionerhas affirmed that all the above-mentioned documents were provided to theAssessing Officer. 8.Notwithstanding the information as provided, the AO has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not furnished any explanation regardingthe source of the deposits. This is ex facie erroneous. Thus, it is apparentthat the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the materialparticulars furnished by the petitioner. 9.We, accordingly, set aside the impugned assessment order andremand the matter to the AO to consider afresh and pass an assessment orderafter considering the material on record within a period of four weeks fromdate. 10.The petitioner is also at liberty to furnish further information as itconsiders relevant to the AO within a period of two weeks from date. 11.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.Pendingapplications are also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 02, 2025Tr/gsr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any