BHAVIKA RAVI SUKHIJA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL)-CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

2 During the sear spreadsheets was sei entries, including so date of receipt of ca conduit companies c the amounts involve spreadsheets were instructions of Shri A operators Late Shri G On being confronted refused to give details of the contents of th hand written rough n typed out the sheets he entered into draft floor, Arjun Nagar recorded during the modus operandi of angadias and routin channels in the gu ordinarily charged a operandi of the trans “The cash is instructions o equivalent fu form of uns ITA rch, certain digital material in th ized. The spreadsheets containe o-called "OT" and "CCM" entrie sh, corresponding bank entries controlled by the group, the be ed. According to the Assessing prepared by Shri Nishant C Ashish Begwani and other Kolk Gopal Das Aggarwal and Shri V d with the excel sheet, Shri N s of the sheets and claimed that he documents. But he stated t noting from Shri Gopal Aggarwa on the instructions of Ashish t excel format, at his office loca Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. T e search proceedings explain receipt of cash from benefi ng of equivalent amounts th uise of unsecured loans, wi at about three per cent. Th saction explained by the AO is ex received from the beneficiaries by some of Shri Amit Chaudhary and in turn he und in respective bank accounts of ben secured loans through non-descript c Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 3 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 he form of Excel d details of loan s, reflecting the s, names of the eneficiaries, and g Officer, these Chhajer at the kata-based entry Vikas Aggarwal . Nishant Chhajer t he was unware that he received al and he simply Begwani, which ated at 941, 2nd The statements ned the alleged ciaries through hrough banking ith commission he brief modus xtracted below: angadias on provides he neficiaries in companies. I coordinate the 3% is receive retain 0.3% of remaining 2.4 Shri Amit Cha his directions Chaudhary. I providing me transactions o 2.3 On examination noted that one of the assessee as a benefic M/s Maa Vaishnavi the Ashish Begwani information containe due procedure under 21.12.2001 . In resp same income as retu and affording oppo completed the asses ₹20,00,000/- as une Act, being in the natu 3. On appeal, the upheld the action of noted that the addi seized during the se naming the assessee during the search ITA e process and subsequently commission ed by JatinMadani inform of cash. Shri of such commission and 0.3% is retained 4% is forwarded to Amit Chaudhary. The audhary was made through the angadia s. I do not have the residence details I have utilized the services of Shri Nishan e account of such accommodation e on excel sheet.” n of the seized material, the A e Excel sheets contained an en ciary of a sum of ₹22,00,000/- Pvt. Ltd., an entity alleged to b i group. On the basis of ma ed therein the Ld. Assessing O r the law issued notice u/s 153 ponse, the assessee filed a retur urned originally. After issuing s ortunity of hearing, the As sment under section 153C, tre explained cash credit under se ure of an accommodation entry. learned Commissioner of Incom f the Assessing Officer. The app ition was founded on incrimi earch, including the Excel she as a beneficiary, and the state explaining the systematic ma Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 4 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 n generally @ JatinMadani d by me and e payment to as in Delhi on of Shri Amit ntChhajer for entries/these Assessing Officer ntry showing the routed through be controlled by aterial and the Officer following 3C of the Act on rn declaring the tatutory notices sessing Officer eating a sum of ection 68 of the me-tax (Appeals) pellate authority nating material eets specifically ements recorded anner in which accommodation entr explanation of the as advance towards sale unsupported by an document such as (Appeals) further ob company was legally MCA portal did not impugned transaction statements indicating providing accommod section 68 of the Act commission expendit CIT(A) is reproduced “7.1.2 The ap addition of R considering th with necessa Rs.20,00,000 LIMITED on 1 construction Mumbai. The submitted a confirming th hold due to ab the project is has also state amount. 7.1.3 The a PRIVATE LIM Companies A regularly file ITA ries were provided through she ssessee that the amount represe e of an under-construction flat w ny contemporaneous and lega an agreement for sale. The bserved that the mere fact t y incorporated and reflected as t, by itself, establish the genu n, particularly in the face of dire g that the said entity was used dation entries. Accordingly, the , as well as the consequential a ture, was confirmed. The releva as under: appellant contends that the AO erred i Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 68 of the hat the source of the money was alrea ary evidence. The appellant states that t 0/- received from MAA VAISHNAVI VANI 17/06/2015 was a token amount for sell residential flat at Ekta Tripolish, Gor appellant claims this is a genuine transa copy of a letter dated 14/06/2015 fr his. It is further submitted that the deal bnormal delays in construction by the bu currently under litigation with MHADA. ed an intention to cancel the deal and re appellant argues that MAA VAISHNA MITED is a legally registered compan Act, with an "ACTIVE" status on the MC es financial statements. The appellant Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 5 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 ell entities. The ented a genuine was found to be ally enforceable Commissioner that the lender “active” on the uineness of the ect material and as a conduit for addition under addition towards ant finding of ld in making an e Act, without ady explained the amount of IJYA PRIVATE ling an under- regaon (West), action and has rom the party l was kept on uilder and that The appellant turn the token AVI VANIJYA ny under the CA portal, and asserts that merely becau not mean all transaction documentatio Begwani. The conducted in LIMITED conf requested the for issuing n examination, stated that responses sub 7.1.4 The AO following a s associates, w entries. An ex the appellant 20,00,000/- f AO noted tha Chhajer on th Begwani, in receiving cash descript comp (generally @3 VANIJYA PRI Ashish Begw accommodatio 7.1.5 Crucial group, a state Act was rec VANIJYA PRI giving accomm MAA VAISHN confirmed we accommodatio 10/12/2022 the transactio accommodatio 7.1.6 The app that the tran supported by LIMITED. How substantial e Shri Ashish B ITA se a third party states that the company transactions undertaken by it are bog must be examined separately with n. The appellant claims no knowledge o e appellant also pointed out that no sear n the case of MAA VAISHNAVI VANIJ nfirming their transactions as bogus. T e AO to provide impounded/seized docum notices u/s 153C, and an opportuni which were allegedly not provided. T the AO passed the order without co bmitted on 19/12/2022. O made the addition based on informa search in the case of Shri Ashish Begw who were found to be providers of ac xcel sheet seized during this search spe t as a beneficiary of an accommodation from MAA VAISHNAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE at these excel sheets were prepared by he instructions of Shri Ashish Begwani his statement, explained the modus h from beneficiaries and providing funds panies as unsecured loans, for which 3%) was charged. The AO found that MA IVATE LIMITED was controlled and ma wani Group and was used for pr on entries. lly, during the search action in the Ash ement of Shri Vikash Agrawal under Sect corded, wherein he stated that MAA IVATE LIMITED was a bogus compan modation entries. An annexure to his sta NAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED among ere bogus and shell entities used solely on entries. AO by issuing a show-cau asking for substantial evidence of the g on, concluded that the transaction was an on entry and thus taxable under Section 6 pellant's primary defense revolves around nsaction was a genuine advance for a p y a letter from MAA VAISHNAVI VANIJ wever, this explanation must be weighe evidence unearthed during the search Begwani and his associates. The discove Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 6 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 is bogus does gus, and each h facts and of Shri Ashish rch action was JYA PRIVATE The appellant ments, reasons ity for cross- The appellant onsidering the ation received wani and his ccommodation ecifically listed n entry of Rs. E LIMITED. The y Shri Nishant i. Shri Ashish s operandi of s through non- a commission AA VAISHNAVI anaged by the roviding such hish Begwani tion 131 of the A VAISHNAVI y created for atement listed companies he y for providing use notice on genuineness of n unexplained 68. d the assertion property sale, IJYA PRIVATE ed against the operations on ery of an excel sheet specific from MAA VAI statement of providing acc serious doubt 7.1.7 Furtherm in MAA VAIS identifies this providing acc insider involv appellant's c evidentiary va 7.1.8 The app "ACTIVE" MC LIMITED do specific trans accommodatio to mask their statements g nature of this 7.1.9 The cla the money are receipt at the the identity, c the transactio overwhelming The AO's ord considered, b towards it bei 7.1.10 To su was a genuin Smt. Bhavik combination establish the 7.1.11 Agreem crucial docum  Names (MAA V  Comple status  Total s ITA cally naming the appellant as a beneficia ISHNAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, cou Shri Ashish Begwani detailing the modu commodation entries through such com t on the genuineness of the transaction. more, the statement of Shri Vikash Agraw ISHNAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, s company as a "bogus and shell en commodation entries. This direct admis ved with the company significantly un claim of a genuine business transac alue of the letter dated 14/06/2015. pellant's arguments regarding the legal re CA status of MAA VAISHNAVI VANIJ not, in themselves, prove the genuine saction. It is common for entities engaged on entries to maintain a basic level of leg r actual activities. The specific intelligen athered during the search are more pe transaction than the general MCA status aims of construction delays and the inten e subsequent events that do not alter the time it occurred. The onus is on the appe creditworthiness of the creditor, and the g on to the satisfaction of the AO, which, g contrary evidence from the search, has der indicates that the appellant's subm but found insufficient against the evid ing an accommodation entry. bstantiate the claim that the Rs. 20,00 ne advance for a future property sale, a Ravi Sukhija, should have ideally of legally recognized following doc intent, agreement, and terms of such a tr ment for Sale (Registered or Notarized): Th ment. An Agreement for Sale would typical s and details of the seller (appellant) a VAISHNAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED). ete description of the property being sold as under- construction). sale consideration. Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 7 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 ary of an entry upled with the us operandi of mpanies, casts wal, a director unequivocally tity" used for ssion from an ndermines the tion and the egistration and JYA PRIVATE eness of this d in providing gal compliance nce and direct ertinent to the s. ntion to return e nature of the ellant to prove genuineness of in light of the not been met. missions were dence pointing 0,000 received the appellant, y provided a cuments that ransaction. his is the most lly detail: and the buyer d (including its  The a 20,00,  Terms future p  Clause of non-  Signatu  While r agreem  Corresp (emails VANIJY negotia exchan  Resolu compa a boar and pa docum 7.1.12 The a 20,00,000/- accounting en transaction w 7.1.13 The pr her claim ap VAISHNAVI V 7.1.14 While falls short o Agreement fo standing. Th especially in MAA VAISHN involved in p primarily on circumstances to overcome operations. 7.1.15 The a Begwani is n multiple layer on MAA VAISH the findings Ashish Begw ITA amount received as advance or token 000 in this case). and conditions of the sale, including payments and completion of the sale. es regarding forfeiture or refund of the ad - completion. ures of both parties and witnesses. registration is ideal for enforceability, eve ment would lend more credence than a sim pondence with the Buyer: Any formal c s, letters) between the appellant and MA YA PRIVATE LIMITED regarding the p ations, terms, reason for payment, et nged around the time of the transaction. ution by the Buyer (if a company): If th ny like MAA VAISHNAVI VANIJYA PRIVA rd resolution authorizing the purchase of ayment of the advance would be a stro ment. appellant has argued that the "said a still exists in my books". While this ntry, it is not a legal document proving the with the third party. rimary document submitted by the appell ppears to be a letter dated 14/06/201 VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED. this letter might state the intention of the of the robustness of an "Agreement f or Sale would have more detailed term he AO gave this letter limited evide light of the substantial contrary eviden NAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED was providing accommodation entries. The the letter from the buying party, whi s and the alleged nature of the buyer, w the AO's findings based on the search appellant's contention about not knowing not material, as such entry networks rs of intermediaries. The absence of a se HNAVI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED does derived from the search on the main wani, who controlled and managed suc Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 8 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 n money (Rs. timelines for dvance in case en a notarized mple letter. communication AA VAISHNAVI property sale, tc., preferably he buyer is a VATE LIMITED, f the property ong supporting amount of Rs. indicates an e nature of the lant to support 15 from MAA transaction, it for Sale." An ms and legal entiary value, nce suggesting a shell entity reliance was ich, given the as insufficient h and seizure g Shri Ashish often involve eparate search not invalidate operator, Shri ch entities for providing acc excel sheet de of key perso transaction. 7.1.16 The A material from VANIJYA PR accommodatio 7.1.17 Theref 20,00,000/- u 7.2 Decision challenged th I.T. Act, 1961 7.2.1 The app of Rs. 60,00 Section 69C commission, w this addition was genuine the addition party, ignorin 7.2.2 The AO expenditure u @3% on the based on the during the p commission (g entries. Sinc unexplained c entry was con 7.2.3 Given th Rs. 20,00,000 the nature of argument for transaction) is 7.2.4 The mo detailed in th Ashish Begwa cash by the b 3% is specific ITA commodation entries. The core evidence, etailing the appellant's transaction and t ns involved, forms a direct nexus to th AO has relied upon credible informatio m a search action that implicated MAA RIVATE LIMITED as a shell compa on entries and the appellant as a benefici fore, Ground No. 1 is dismissed, and the a under Section 68 is upheld. on Ground No.2: In Ground No.2, the he addition of Rs. 60,000/- under Sectio . pellant argues that the AO erred in makin 00/- on account of unexplained expen C, asserting that this amount, purp was never paid by the appellant. The ap is baseless as the main transaction of Rs and not an accommodation entry. The ap is based merely on wrong information ng documentary evidence. O made the addition of Rs. 60,000/- as under Section 69C, calculating it as com accommodation entry of Rs. 20,00,000 e modus operandi explained by Shri As post-search investigation, wherein he s generally @3%) was received in cash for p ce the primary transaction was tre cash credit, the related commission for fa nsidered unexplained expenditure. he decision on Ground No. 1, where the 0/- has been upheld as an unexplained f an accommodation entry, the basis of t r this ground (i.e., the genuineness of s not tenable. odus operandi of accommodation entry he assessment order based on the stat ani, typically involves the payment of a c beneficiary to the provider of such entrie cally mentioned as the general commissio Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 9 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 including the the statements he appellant's n and seized A VAISHNAVI any providing iary. addition of Rs. appellant has on 69C of the ng an addition nditure under ported to be ppellant states s. 20,00,000/- ppellant claims n from a third s unexplained mmission paid 0/-. This was hish Begwani stated that a providing such eated as an facilitating this transaction of cash credit in the appellant's f the primary providers, as tement of Shri commission in es. The rate of on rate. While direct evidenc obtain in suc expenditure i established a which detaile where commis 7.2.5 The AO based on th consistent pa paying any co the primary t The addition the amount of 4. Before us, the l book containing pag letter relating to a fla a copy of the regist Officer proceeded on search conducted in associates, wherein said group were enga guise of unsecured l assessee was a ben ₹20,00,000/- routed entity alleged to be co 4.1 The assessee do from M/s Maa Vaish the assessee is that received against the ITA ce of cash commission payment might ch clandestine arrangements, the infer is a natural corollary once the main t as an accommodation entry. The exce ed these financial movements, was par ssions were an integral component. O's action in estimating the commission e he evidence gathered during the sea attern of such transactions. The appella ommission is a self-serving statement esp transaction itself has been found to be under Section 69C is consequential to th f Rs. 20,00,000/- was an accommodation learned counsel for the assesse ges 1 to 22, containing a prov at in the project “Ekta Tripolish” tered deed dated 21.04.2016. n the basis of information em n the case of Shri Ashish Be it was revealed that entities co aged in providing accommodatio loans. According to the Assess neficiary of such an accommo d through M/s Maa Vaishnav ontrolled and operated by the sa oes not dispute the receipt of t navi Pvt. Ltd.; however, the con the amount was not a loan b proposed sale of a residential f Bhavika Ravi Sukhija 10 A No. 5220/MUM/2025 be difficult to rence of such transaction is l sheet itself, t of a system expenditure is arch and the ant's denial of specially when e non-genuine. he finding that n entry.” ee filed a paper visional booking , Goregaon, and The Assessing manating from a egwani and his ontrolled by the on entries in the sing Officer, the dation entry of vi Pvt. Ltd., an aid group. he said amount nsistent stand of but an advance flat, namely Flat

4 The Assessing lawful inferences as record, subject, how effective opportunity confrontation with a decided uninfluence reasoned and speakin 5.5 Since the additi towards alleged com intrinsically linked to receipt of ₹20,00,000 Assessing Officer to outcome of the proce 5.6 The grounds o statistical purposes. 7. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 24/12/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.