Accommodation entry loans: section 68 applies to book credits, with consequential commission and interest disallowances.

A book credit shown as a loan is tested under section 68, not section 69A, where the amount is recorded in the books; the assessee must prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, and failure to do so permits addition as unexplained cash credit. A lender's admission that it was a paper entity used for accommodation entries can support the adverse inference, and denial of cross-examination does not by itself defeat the addition where the statutory burden remains unmet. On that basis, reopening under section 148A was treated as valid, estimated commission under section 69C was sustained, and interest on the non-genuine loan was disallowed under section 37.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the loan credited in the assessee's books could be sustained as an addition by invoking section 69A, and whether the addition was nevertheless maintainable as an unexplained cash credit under section 68; (ii) Whether the addition based on the lender's statement and the denial of cross-examination was vitiated, and whether the reopening under section 148A was without due application of mind; (iii) Whether the estimated commission expenditure under section 69C was sustainable; (iv) Whether the interest disallowance under section 37 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the loan credited in the assessee's books could be sustained as an addition by invoking section 69A, and whether the addition was nevertheless maintainable as an unexplained cash credit under section 68.

Analysis: The amount received from the lender was reflected in the books, so section 69A was not the appropriate provision because that section applies where unexplained money is found to be owned by the assessee and not recorded in the books. The enquiry, however, went to the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender and the transaction, which are the core ingredients of section 68. The evidence showed that the lender was a paper entity engaged in accommodation entries, and the assessee failed to establish that the transaction was a genuine loan supported by independent financial capacity.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 69A was incorrect, but the addition was rightly sustained as an unexplained cash credit under section 68, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition based on the lender's statement and the denial of cross-examination was vitiated, and whether the reopening under section 148A was without due application of mind.

Analysis: The lender's controller admitted that the concern was a paper company used for accommodation entries, and that admission was treated as material affecting the genuineness of the assessee's loan. The assessee's contention that the statement did not specifically name it did not dislodge the evidentiary value of the admission regarding the lender entity itself. The assessee also did not discharge the statutory burden of proving creditworthiness and genuineness. As to reopening, the material received was treated as tangible material, and the procedure under section 148A was followed; the assessing authority was not required to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of reopening.

Conclusion: The addition was not vitiated by denial of cross-examination, and the reassessment initiation was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the estimated commission expenditure under section 69C was sustainable.

Analysis: Once the principal loan transaction was found to be an accommodation entry, an associated commission payment was inferred as a natural corollary. The estimate was based on the admitted standard commission rate used in such transactions and on the finding that the underlying transaction was bogus.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the interest disallowance under section 37 was justified.

Analysis: Since the loan itself was held to be non-genuine and an accommodation entry, interest paid on such a loan could not be treated as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The disallowance followed from the character of the underlying transaction.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 37 was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions and disallowance were sustained in full, and the assessee's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a credit in the books is shown to be a sham accommodation entry, the correct test is section 68 and the assessee must prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness; failure to do so permits addition notwithstanding a wrong statutory label, and consequential commission and interest claims arising from the bogus transaction may also be disallowed.

---