TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short) vide order dated 31.03.2023 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) as unexplained credit. The appeal relates to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent-assessee is a non-filer for relevant assessment year. The case of the respondent-assessee was subjected to assessment under Section 147 of the Act in which the AO by order dated 18.12.2017 assessed the income at Rs. 80,29,85,190/-. The matter reached this Tribunal in ITA No. 964/MUM/2019. By order dated 09.08.2021 the appeal came to be partly allowed thereby remitting the matter back to the AO to frame the assessment afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee. 3. It appears that by notices dated 08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s lodged against the respondent-assessee with Nirmal Nagar Police Station, which matter was subsequently transferred to the EOW and all the documents, computers, laptops, etc. were seized in May, 2011. MPID Special Case No. 20 of 2015 under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 is pending against the assessee before the Special Judge at Mumbai. It was contended that the assessee had made certain short term deposits with ING Vysya Bank (now known as Kotak Mahindra Bank) from the money received from M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Private Limited, which is duly reflected in the bank statement, as set out in para 3 of the assessment order. 6. Apart from the issue of unexplained credit under Section 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocumentary evidences thereof. However, in the facts of assessee's case, the reply is filed but documentary evidences supporting the transactions has not been filed. Accordingly, merely on the basis of reply filed by assessee, the claim of assessee cannot be accepted in its entirety. Accordingly, Rs 25,70,01,000/- is added in total income of assessee as Unexplained Credit u/s 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income. 3. Assessee in KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK A/c No 528044000276 received Rs 27,05,346/- from different parties being Tulsient Information System Growth Associates etc. Assessee during the course of proceeding was not able to furnish the nature of receipts alongwith d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness of the transaction cannot be said to be established, particularly when the object and purpose for such advance has not been stated, much less established. It is submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not examined the aspect of the creditworthiness of M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Private Limited, which was essential in the context of the impugned addition under Section 68 of the Act. It is submitted that the respondent-assessee and M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Private Limited can be said to be related entities as they were having the same Directors, viz. Shri Rajiv M. Mehrotra and Shri Manoj Kumar Dharmveer Gupta. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned addition be restored. 12. The learned AR submitted that the name of the respondent-company has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk account of the respondent-assessee. Out of this, the respondent-assessee repaid an amount of Rs. 25,74,36,435/- to M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Private Limited on 31.03.2011. The said amount is little over the original amount received i.e. Rs. 25,43,01,001/-. It is also undisputed that both the respondent-assessee as well as M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Private Limited had same common Directors and thus can be said to be related entities. 15. It is well-settled that under Section 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor/lender and the genuineness of the transaction. So far as the identity is concerned, it can be said to be established as has been held by the learned CIT(A) as M/s. Tulsiyat Tek P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant has presented documentary evidence indicating that a sum of Rs. 25,74,36,435/- was repaid to M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Private Limited during the same financial year through the same ING Vysya Bank account. Notably, the amount repaid exceeded the initial loan received. Detailed documentation, including transaction dates, amounts received, and repayment details, has been submitted and verified with the relevant bank statements. Upon examination, it is confirmed that the entire loan amount received was duly repaid by the appellant within the same financial year. Based on the above discussion and evidence provided, the claim of the appellant regarding the genuineness of the loan transaction has been substantiated. Hence, Ground of ....