AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of tiles. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its Return of Income on 28-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,76,61,290/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and regular assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 28-01-2016 assessing the total income as Rs. 1,76,71,160/-. The assessment was reopened based on the information that assessee has taken accommodation entries of Rs. 39,00,000/- from M/s.KS Tradeinfra Pvt Ltd. and Rs. 11,00,000/- from M/s. Mainak Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. respectively. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 24-03-2020. 2.1. In response, the assessee filed Return of Income on 10-07- 2020. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished confirmation of account from M/s. KS Tradeinfra Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Mainak Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. wherein assessee received Rs. 56,00,000/- and Rs. 64,00,000/- respectively as share capital. The assessee further claimed the money was refunded to the depositors during the year under consideration, hence the benefit of telescoping be given to the assessee. The Assessing Officer considered the above submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee filed before us for the first time Share Transfer Forms, Share Application and Shares Certificates issued to the parties, Board Resolution of the assessee company dated 15-07-2013, 28-09-2013 and 31-03-2014 and SBI bank statement for the relevant period as additional evidences. However, the assessee has not justified the so called and fresh documents pertaining to the Year 2013 and why not produced before the Lower Authorities, when the same were found to be its own documents and not that of third parties. Further the assessee has taken in-consistent stand before Lower Authorities that the unsecured loans were repaid by the assessee company, whereas it share application money. There is no bank statement for the date of repayment by the assessee. Thus the documents are contrary to the facts placed before us, therefore we are not entertaining the additional documents filed before this Tribunal. The ld Counsel confined his arguments limited to this new documents and not other grounds, therefore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are devoid of merits and the same are hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 682/Ahd/2024 is her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Wing from bank of such parties and on examination of such bank statements, they have observed that there was transfer of funds from one account to another account, there are voluminous transactions and no regular expenses are debited in bank account. (vi) The AO has also referred to analysis of relevant bank statement of Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Limited made by Investigation Wing wherein amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was credited in two equal instalments from Samay Corporation, paper entity operated by Chintan Bhandari for cheque discounting and such amount was transferred to Priti Diamonds and SKZ Properties. On this basis, AO observed that it is likely that unaccounted cash of such entities was deposited in proprietary concern's bank account and same was transferred in the bank account of three companies and again same is transferred to original entity. (vii) The Investigation Wing have made inquiries with VAT Department and it was found that VAT Registration of Biraj Manimpex Pvt. Limited and Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Limited were cancelled and their status at GST website shows "inactive". (viii) The AO has also referred to statement of Mr. Jigar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but at the same time, such companies have substantial sources of funds which includes long term and short term liabilities which are used for giving advances and they have earned interest income on advances/paid interest on such deposits. 5.7 The AO has taxed amount received from above referred three concerns as unexplained cash credit mainly relying upon finding of ADI/Inspector Report in the case of Mr. Jigar Shah and Jigar Trivedi, directors of above referred three concerns, which summarized herein above. The above referred inquiry is not with reference to transactions carried out by appellant but it was general inquiry. On this basis, appellant has contended that during the course of Assessment Proceedings it had discharged its primary onus as cast under Section 68 of the Act and hence onus is then shifted to Revenue to rebut such evidence as submitted by appellant. The appellant has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of D.J. Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 313/Ahd/2017 dated 03/03/2020. 5.8. It is observed that AO has also made addition on the basis of ADI inquiry which reflects that above referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, amounting to Rs. 20,42,59,300/-, without considering the facts that, the assessee company received the amount of Rs. 7,97,94,300/- from M/s. Biraj Manimpex Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 6,03,60,500/- from M/s Boaston Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 6,41,04,500/- from M/s. Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., Which are engaged in providing accommodation entries." 10. We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including the case laws and Paper Books filed before us. It is seen from record the assessee filed the same evidences which were placed before the Ld AO and contended that it has discharged its onus as cast under section 68 of the Act [page nos. 11- 45 of the Paper Book], whereas the AO has not established as to how assessee's unaccounted money was routed back as unsecured loans. The statement of Mr. Jigar Trivedi relied upon by Ld AO is a general statement and he has nowhere stated that accommodation entries were provided to the assessee. Whereas the assessee had submitted bank account of such parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Profit & Loss Account, appellant has drawn attention to the fact that such companies have shown employee benefit expenses and other expenses in relevant Profit & Loss Account. E.g. in AY 2015-16 Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Limited has shown turnover of Rs. 36,87,145/- and shown ernployee benefit expenses for Rs. 1,88,910/- and administrative expenses of Rs. 6,36,414/-, (iii) So far as observation of AO that shareholder fund is paltry amount, appellant has claimed that Boston Tradelink Pvt. Limited has shown such amount at Rs. 20.68 lacs, Biraj Impex Pvt. Limited at Rs. 1.97 crores and Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Limited at Rs. 10.95 lacs. The appellant has also claimed that such companies have shown substantial amount as long term secured and unsecured funds which are sufficient to give advances to various parties including appellant. The AO has nowhere proved that such loans are bogus and on the contrary, he has stated that such companies have shown long term borrowings/secured loans. (iv) Merely because such companies have no fixed assets or TDS amount is more than tax liability, it does not mean that such companies are bogus and have provided accommodative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled any cash loan from the said entity. His only case is that the assessee has not been able to prove source along with genuineness and creditworthiness of the above stated entity. It emanates from above extracted portion that the assessee has filed all relevant details along with assessment records of the said entity explaining source of the loans to the above entity's balance sheet indicating sufficient reserves, surplus and share premium as followed by repayment in succeeding assessment year. Learned Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year to be corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 68, since amount of loan received by assessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted." 10.7. Similarly Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ganesh Plantation Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 149 held as follows: "Where Assessing Officer initiated reassessment on basis of Information that search in case of Venus Group showed that amount of Rs. 4 crores had been received by assessee from Builders of Venus Group through banking channel against corresponding payment of unaccounted cash by assessee to Builders, and considered this as accommodation entry and made addition under section 68, since no live link/proximate nexus of alleged dubious transactions between searched person and assessee had been brought on record, said addition was to be deleted." 10.8. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. Further the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is a well-reasoned and detailed order which does not require any interference. Therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 11.....