AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 29.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 1,01,60,320/-. The return was re-opened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that accommodation entries of Jignesh S. Shah and Sanjay Shah were received by the Assessee through the companies controlled by them, namely, M/s. ANR Finance Limited and M/s. Kanungo Financiers Limited. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessee filed the same return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,01,64,320/-. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessee filed confirmation of accounts along with bank statement, duly highlighting the credit entries, income tax returns, audit reports and balance sheet, etc., before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation, thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000; being the unexplained loan from the above two parties as unexplained, and also disallowed the interest amount of Rs. 1,89,124/- paid to M/s. ANR Finance Limited and Rs. 9,89,589/- paid to M/s. Kanungo Financiers Limited and demanded tax thereon. 2.1 Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, the Assessee file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex parte in violation of the principles of natural justice and without granting to the appellant a fair, proper and meaningful opportunity and confirmed the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer that the appellant is not serious and sincere to pursue the case is wholly incorrect. [4] That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was also grievously erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the amount Rs. 1,26,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. and his order is thus prima facie devoid of merits and contrary to law and needs to be quashed and prayed for accordingly. [5] The appellant therefore requests your good self to kindly delete the above-mentioned additions of Rs. 1,26,00,000/-and interest of Rs. 11,78,713/-on it made by the Ld. A. O. by upholding the same by the Ld. CIT(A) looking to the merits of the case. [6] The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal." 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 04-06-2015 Loan taken 2500000 31-03-2016 Interest on Unsecured Loan 989589 31-03-2016 TDS On Interest 98959 30-06-2016 Interest on Unsecured Loan 325824 30-06-2016 TDS On Interest 32582 06-10-2016 Loan Repayment 890630 19-12-2016 Loan Repayment 3500000 31-03-2017 Interest on Unsecured Loan 838563 31-03-2017 TDS On Interest 86516 29-11-2017 Loan Repayment 500000 07-12-2017 Loan Repayment 547949 31-03-2018 Interest on Unsecured Loan 865162 31-03-2018 TDS On Interest 86516 10-08-2018 Loan Repayment &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow Assessee's unaccounted money was routed back as unsecured loans. The statement of Mr. Jignesh Shah 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 parties and sources of such loans were also explained [page nos.42-47 and 54-54 of the Paper Book] and there was neither cash deposit prior to giving cheque to the assessee nor AO has established any links of cash deposit in layering bank account and the loans received by the assessee. Therefore, the addition u/s. 68 of the Act cannot be made merely on the ground that the loan creditors have shown meagre income or addition was made based upon statement of entry provider. The assessee also claimed that during search action u/s. 132, no incriminating evidences suggesting any exchange of cash against loans were found. Thus the Ld AO did not bring any direct or circumstantial evidence on record to show that any cash was returned by the assessee to the lenders or that the loans were not genuine. Further none of the materials relied upon by Ld AO establish any nexus between the assessee and the alleged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient 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 correct. We take into account all these facts and judicial precedents to affirm CIT(A)'s findings under challenge deleting the impugned addition. This first substantive ground is accordingly declined." 7.2 In the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as follows: "Once primary documents are given, onus shifts from assessee to revenue. In absence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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." 8. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we find merits in the grounds raised by the Assessee and the same are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 2224/Ahd/2025 is allowed. IN ITA NO. 2225/AHD/2025:- 10. The appeal filed by the Assessee in for the Asst. Year 2018-19, raising the following Grounds of Appeal: "[1] The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 59,06,101/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 68 is illegal and bad in law. The appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submission made during the appellate proceedings as well as assessment proceedings. [2] The appellant has p....