TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jections were heard together and pertain to same assessee, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4852/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17] Revenue's appeal 3. The grievances of the Revenue read as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,46,00,000/- made by Assessing Office u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the creditors are only shell companies, created for abatement of and legitimize, illicit means and evade taxes, and its legal identity is only a facade to hide its illegal operations. 3. The Ld' CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that submissions of audited accounts and bank state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of unsecured loan. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted on merits the addition of Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted on merits the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loan u/s 37. 6. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same." 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a group company of Filatax India Limited. The Assessee during the year has obtained loans fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded during the course of search. 7. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the issues involved in the case of the assessee are similar to those involved in the case of Filatax India Limited in ITA Nos. 4635/DEL/24 and others order dated 30.06.2025. The ld AR submitted that Filatex India Ltd. had also taken loans from the same parties as above namely 1. ANM Fincap Private Limited, 2. M/s Savita Holdings Private Limited, 3. M/s RN Khemka Enterprises Private Limited and 4. M/s Satsai Finlease Private Limited. It was submitted that loans from these parties have been held to be genuine by Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of Filatex India Limited for AY 2016-17 vide ITA No.2060/Del/2024 & C.O.No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee from four companies which were alleged to be bogus accommodation provider entities. The assessee received total amount of loans of INR 2.46 crores from four companies during the year and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2.51 crores which included commission for providing the entries. 12. We find that the co-ordinate bench in the case of Filatax India Limited vide order dated 30.06.2025 has decided the bunch of appeals. Like assessee in the present case, Filatax India Ltd had also taken loans from the same parties which have been found to be genuine loans by the co-ordinate bench(supra). The coordinate bench of ITAT found that these parties were genuine and their loans were genuine. It would be pertinent to refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 taxmann.com 70. 37. In case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (SC) reported in 281 CTR 241(SC), the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses and the tribunal merely observed that the cross examination of the dealers in that case, could not have brought out any material which would not otherwise be in possession of the appellant- assessee. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and observed that it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross examination and make the remarks such as was done in that case. 38. Thus, the denial of opportunity to cross examine which g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any cash deposition in the account of any of the lender companies at the time of issuing cheques/RTGS in favour of the Assessee. Therefore, Appellant has duly discharged the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. 40. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessmen....