TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was computed & assessed at Rs. 29,56,940/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs. 6,56,940/-. The addition u/s 68 of Rs. 23,00,000/- was made. The aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Assessment Order". The relevant portion of para 4.15 of the impugned assessment order is reproduced as under:- 4.15 On verification it is seen that Shri Sharad Kumar Darak was involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of Share Capital and Loans and Advances through the following companies controlled by him. The present assessee i.e. Khojema Bohra (PAN: AGGPB9954Q) is one of the such beneficiary who had taken accommodation entry and inflated the same in the form of Unsecured Loan.Shri Sharad Kumar Darak has admitted in his statement that these correspondences were between him and some brokers. He explained that these brokers provide him with cash received by them from beneficiaries and this cash was utilized to provide the accommodative entries to the beneficiaries in form of share capital and unsecured loans from his companies via banking modes (cheque/RTGS) and in turn he profits some percentage of the cash as commission fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The AO had passed a speaking order marshalling the facts taking into account all the attendant circumstances as well as taking guidance of the legal precedents applicable to the facts of the case (ii) The appellant's claim that the amount received from the entities are genuine transactions and the creditor has filed its return of income, its having a valid PAN and hence identity of the creditor is proved and the transactions are genuine as all the payments were made through banking channel alone would not make the claim a genuine transaction since the transactions are made and presented in such a manner to make it look genuine and such transactions have to conform to the book requirements of a valid claim. But what is apparent is always not always true. (iii) The statements recorded from Sarad Darak who is the director of the following shell companies which were stated to not existing in the addresses given in the return of income were analysed by the Assessing Officer and the statement recorded at the survey premises of the following companies revealed that: Statement of Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal s/o Shri Hari Agrawal, owner of the building was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m or requested him to take our cash and provide unsecured loans from his companies via banking modes. Vll. In absence of any such statements or records against the assessee we request that no adverse inference can be drawn, in respect of bonafide and genuineness of aforesaid loans transactions of the assessee, which was repaid by the assessee along with interest (v) In this regard, it is pointed out that if the transactions are genuine and bonafide. the lender could have confirmed that the transaction with the appellant is genuine. Sharad Kumar in his statement confirmed that he was only an accommodation entry provider and the companies floated by him were being used to lend share application money or loans to the beneficiaries. Even if the companies are existing as per the records of registrar of companies, the credit worthiness of the company to give such amount was not satisfactorily proved. The Investigation Wing after conducting necessary enquiries concluded that the appellant has been mentioned as one of the beneficiaries. (vi) The legal precedents relied upon are equally countered by other legal precedents on this subject and the decisive decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee before the AO and has held that in the light of those documents, it can be said that the assessee has established the identity of the parties. It has further been observed that the report of the investigation wing cannot conclusively prove that the assessee's own monies were brought back in the form of share application money. As noted in the earlier paragraph, it is not the burden of the AO to prove that connection. There has been no examination by the Tribunal of the assessment proceedings in any detail in order to demonstrate that the assessee has discharged its onus to prove not only the identity of the share applicants, but also their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. No attempt was made by the Tribunal to scratch the surface and probe the documentary evidence in some depth, in the light of the conduct of the assessee and other surrounding circumstances in order to see whether the assessee has discharged its onus under Section 68. With respect, it appears to us that there has only been a mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject without any serious appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. (viii) Reliance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant second appeal. It was submitted that the "Impugned Order" is dated 29.08.2024 & instant appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.10.2024 however the instant appeal was filed on 15.11.2024. A condonation of delay application dated 06.08.2025 is placed on record of this Tribunal along with an affidavit in support dated 06.08.2025. With regard to the delay it was submitted that delay occurred due to continuous technical issues due to migration on the ITAT e-filing portal although the appeal fee was paid on 25.10.2024 well with the limitation period. The assessee has acted bonafidely & with due diligence at all times. There is no malafide intention or negligence in delayed filing. It is a nominal delay. The Ld. Dr has left the issue of condonation of delay to the wisdom of the Tribunal. We after hearing both the parties condone the delay as assessee has shown sufficient cause. The delay is bonafide too. Accordingly we admit the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue under second appeal of addition is a covered issue by several orders & decisions of this Tribunal. The same may be noted. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for & on behalf of the Revenue contended that the re....