TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia & Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal vide Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, order dated 04.05.2022 and CBDT Instruction No.01/2022, dated 11.05.2022, the Assessing Officer provided the material and documents to the assessee. After considering the submissions made by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 22.07.2022 was passed. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 was issued after obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. The assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act filed its ITR on 10.02.2023 declaring same income as admitted in the original ITR. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued in response to which the assessee filed its submissions before the Assessing Officer. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Oneworld group of cases on 06.11.2019. During the course of search proceedings it was noticed that various Oneworld group entities have shown purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced the bank statement and ledger confirmation of the said loan creditor during the assessment proceedings. So far as the amount of Rs. 1,80,822/- is concerned, it was argued that the same amount nowhere related to the assessee and the entry was booked by M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd unilaterally which has subsequently been reversed by them. It was argued that before the Assessing Officer the assessee also pleaded that the said transaction was genuine in nature and no bogus accommodation entry was undertaken by the assessee with M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. The request of the assessee for cross-examination of the director of M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd to substantiate as to whether he has mentioned the name of the assessee in his statement was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions it was argued that when the assessee had borrowed money which was repaid during the same financial year with interest, then the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be applied. The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Amba Tradecorp (P.) Ltd reported in 145 taxmann.com 27 (Guj), decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Real Innerspring Technolog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts the lender M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd is a paper company without any genuine business activity. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in accepting that more receipt and repayment of loan through banking channel is not sufficient to establish that the unsecured loan transaction are genuine where lender is an established paper company with no business activity. The reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Nova Promoter Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del). iii) On the facts and in circumstance of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A), failed to appreciate the fact that no interest has been paid against this alleged unsecured loan making the transaction non-genuine as held in Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITAT Delhi's decision in ITA No. 647/Del/2023 dated 27-03-2025. iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not properly appreciating that the only relevant three-pronged test for examining such transactions is (a) the identity of the lender, (b) the genuineness of the transaction, and (c) the creditworthiness of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch of the Tribunal in the case of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), he submitted that since the creditworthiness of the lender was not established, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in deleting the addition. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He at the outset invoking Rule 27 of the IT Rules, 1962 submitted that the Revenue has challenged the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act as accommodation entry passed on the basis of information from a search action on Oneworld group. He submitted that the allegation levelled against the assessee emanates from a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried out in the case of Oneworld group of cases on 06.11.2019. During the course of search proceedings it was revealed that various Oneworld group entities have shown purchases and sales from and to the entities controlled and managed by one Shri Rajesh G. Mehta and he was found to be involved in bogus purchase and sale transactions wherein only invoices were raised and there was no actual movement / delivery of goods. Further, Shri R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) and the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manibhadra Securities Services P. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), has held that where the assessee took loan and had furnished the identity of loan givers and the assessee was not beneficiary of loan as the same was repaid, no addition u/s 68 of the Act, therefore, the same being in accordance with law, has to be upheld. 15. So far as the decision relied on by the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoter Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, he submitted that the said decision is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case it was share application money and not loan which has been repaid. He submitted that when two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the assessee has to be adopted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. reported in (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue be dismissed. 16. I have heard the ....