Y P STEEL EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“G” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Physical hearing)
Y P Steel Exim Private Limited
5 2N Floor Nanuram Dr. Ambedkar
Road, Kalyan West, Kalyan-
Dombivali, Maharashtra – 421301. [PAN: AAACY5906A]

Vs
DCIT, Circle -1, Mumbai,
Mohan Plaza Kalyan,
Kalyan-Dombivali,
Maharashtra - 421301. Appellant / Assessee

Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate &
Shri Pravesh Advani, CA
Revenue by Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT - DR
Date of Institution
30.06.2025
Date of hearing
25.09.2025
Date of pronouncement
10.11.2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 18.06.2025 for AY 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) which is bad in law and void ab initio as the principles of natural justice were not followed. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the faceless AO erred in not providing a copy of the statement recorded and an opportunity to cross examine the party as a principle of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) legally erred in upholding the action of the AO of assessing a sum of Rs.74,38,180

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
2

as unexplained cash credit u's 68 r.w.s. 115BBE and taxing the same
@60%.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honble
CIT(A) legally erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest u/s 234A of the Act at Rs.58,948 and u/s 234B of the Act at Rs.21,81,076. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) legally erred in upholding the action of the AO of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.”

The assessee submitted that they have taken loan from Shree Nakoda Vitta
(I) Pvt. Ltd. and return the same on and around 12.07.2017. The assessee furnished the details of return of said amount. The assessee submitted that they have furnished the bank details. The assessing officer recorded that perusal of bank statement of Bank of Baroda shows that assessee has not made repayment to Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. and that as per bank statement the payments were made to Mehta Promotions and Mature
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in July, 2017 aggregating of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Rs.
10,00,000/- was paid to Kushal Impex and Rs. 20,00,000/- to Vivra Trading.
No TDS was made on interest paid to Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. The assessing officer treated the entire amount as unexplained credit under section 68 and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE in the assessment order dated 23.04.2021. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detail written submission as recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). In the submission, the assessee submitted that during the assessment, the assessing officer enquired about the loan taken from Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. The name of Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. was not known to the assessee as it was un-relatable as the said amount was received through finance brokers
Keval Shah, therefore, the assessee initially denied the receipt of amount from Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. The amount was in fact received through banking channel in the bank account of assessee. The assessee

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
4
Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
5

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
6

However, on realising such mistake, the assessee filed confirmation that assessee-company has availed loan from Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. The assessee made repayment of such loan in July, 2017, out of which Rs.
25,00,000/- was paid to Mehta Promotions and Mature Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Rs.
10,00,000/- to Kushal Impex and Rs. 20,00,000/- to Vivra Trading. Shree
Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. has again confirmed such fact. Such repayment was to such party directly who were creditors of Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt.
Ltd. at their instance. Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. has given a fresh confirmation, copy of which is placed on record. The repayment at the instance of Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. was made through banking channel. Such fact is accepted by assessing officer; the basis of addition is that such repayment was not reflected in the bank statement of Bank of Baroda. The assessee has filed copy of bank statement which clearly shows the repayment to Mehta Promotions and Mature Holdings Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.
25,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- respectively on 12.07.2017, Rs. 10,00,000/- to Kushal Impex and Rs. 20,00,000/- to Vivra Trading on 26.07.2017. The assessee discharged his primary onus in furnishing details of loan and repayment was made within the short period which is clearly discernible from the bank statement, no addition to be made under section 68. The lower authority has not verified the facts despite bringing all such facts with evidence in their notice. The assessee discharged its primary onus. Once, primary onus is discharged by assessee, the onus is shifted on the assessing officer to prove otherwise. The ld AR of the assessee submits that Hon’ble

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
7
Dodhia vs DCIT (ITA No. 2218/M/2025) dated 22.07.2025 and in ITO vs
Bhagwati Prasad Na Rungta (ITA No. 1574/M/2024) dated 22.01.2025. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that repayment is made to some other parties. No documentary evidence about repayment was made before lower authorities. The transaction was not reported in audit report furnished in Form 3CED.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that during assessment, the assessee initially denied transaction with Shree Nakoda Vitta
(I) Pvt. Ltd. However, on issuing further show cause notice, the assessee accepted the transaction and furnished the requisite details. The assessee also explained that loan was received through Keval Shah, so the assessee immediately not realised about the loan from Shree Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
8

The assessee also explained that loan received from Shree Nakoda Vitta (I)
Pvt. Ltd. was immediately repaid at their instances to four different parties.
The assessee also furnished their bank account. The assessing officer instead of making any further inquiry treated the entire credit as unexplained credit.
No doubt that initially the assessee denied the transaction, however, immediately on realising mistake explained the fact that said loan was arranged through a broker/financer and was repaid on the instance of Shree
Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. We find that despite explaining the fact about repayment of loan, the assessing officer has not made any verification of fact either from Mehta Promotions and Mature Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kushal Impex and Vivra Trading or from Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt Ltd. We find that before us, the assessee has filed bank statement showing debit entry in favour of all four such parties. The assessee has also filed confirmation from Shree
Nakoda Vitta (I) Pvt. Ltd. that all such four parties were creditors of the assessee. All such fact is not countered by revenue. No doubt that initially the reply furnished by assessee creates doubt about the conduct and transaction with assessee. However, the assessee within reasonable time explained the fact and accepted their mistake that loans were arranged through broker and were repaid at the instance of lender to their creditor.
Such fact is duly substantiated by the assessee; the assessing officer has not brought any adverse evidence furnished by assessee. In our view, once the assessee discharged its primary onus, the onus shifts on the assessing officer to prove it otherwise.

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
9

MUMBAI, Dated: 10/11/2025
Biswajit

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited (AY 2018-19)
10

Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)
The Assessee;
(2)
The Revenue;
(3)
The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4)
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5)
Guard file.
By Order