TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds of Appeal are as under: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of (Appeals)-30, New Delhi ( CIT-A for Short) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs 10,53,03,397/- under Section 69A Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act for short) to the total income of the appellant without appreciating that the said addition wad made :- (a) Simply on conjectures and surmises without any tangible evidence (b) by wrongly holding and that too, without jurisdiction that the loans taken in earlier years were not genuine and, therefore their repayment supposedly generated an equal amount of cash taxable u/s 69A of the Act, although, as on date, the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er came to be passed on 10/06/2021 under Section 143(3) of the Act by disallowing Rs. 17,93,000/- under Section 14A of the Act, reduced the exemption under Section 10AA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 49,74,000/- and also made addition of Rs. 10,53,05,397/- under Section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 10/06/2021, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 25/09/2025, confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,53,05,397/- and partly allowed the Appeal. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the above appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee canvassing on Grounds of Appeal submitted that the loans were raised in preceding years and all those assessments were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had repaid the unsecured loans, while in actual the genuine transaction was that the Company had received back the unexplained cash from the entry operator and reversed those bogus accommodation entry back to those Companies. The A.O. further held that the Assessee Company had failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. A.O. has relied on the statement of one Mr. Himanshu Verma and Sh. Vikas Kumar Aggrawal while drawing adverse inference as in respect of genuineness of the loans received and repaid by the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made under Section 69A of the Act holding that loans are not genuine and the Assessee had failed to explain the source of repayment. 7. It is not in di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns were repaid during the preceding years and there is no dispute in respect of the same. It is the specific case of the Assessee that loans were repaid out of self-generated business funds and bank over draft limits. 9. Further, it is observed that during the Assessment Year 2018-19, the total sale was Rs. 557 crore, net profit as per P & L Account is Rs. 21.61 crore and general reserve and retained earnings was Rs. 210 crore. The subject transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts. Though the A.O. relied on the statements of Sh. Himanshu Verma and Sh. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal, even after seeking for opportunity to cross-examination, the same was not provided to the Assessee. 10. In so far as source of repayment is concerned....