MANISH RAVI SHENDGE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-27(2), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT
MEMBER
&
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Manish Ravi Shendge
Flat No. 401, 4th Floor,
Sai Siddhi Apartment, Plot
No. 220, 11th Road,
Chembur, Mumbai,
400071. Vs.
ACIT-27(2)
Vashi (IT) officer,
Mumbai
थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: CIOPS0349L
Appellant
..
Respondent
Appellant by :
Shri Rashmikant Modi Alw Ms.
Ketki Rajshirkhe
Respondent by :
Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr DR
Date of Hearing
09.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement
14.10.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA [A.M.] :-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated
13.02.2025 by NFAC Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1Cr made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act on account of money received from Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.
P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2011-12
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 25.09.2011, declaring total income at Rs. 2021530/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently an information was received from the ADIT information unit-21 Kolkata from which the AO came to know that several beneficiaries brought back unaccounted money into their books of accounts using banking channels after laying the funds through bank accounts of inexistent entity and shell company. 4. Minaxi Supplier Pvt. Ltd. was one of the beneficiary of such accommodation entries from whom the assessee has received money. 5. Taking a leaf out of the information received the assessment of the assessee was reopened and accordingly statutory notices was issued and served upon the assessee. 6. The AO also came to know that the ultimate source of funds of Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. is by way of cash deposits made by 19 persons/entities which is routed through various intermediate companies/entity which are non-existence and paper company. 7. The assessee was asked to explain the transaction within the parameters of section 68 of the Act. In its reply the assessee explained that the amount received from MSPL is through the banking channel fully accounted in the books of accounts and reflected in the balance sheet. The assessee also submitted the audited financial statements of MSPL income tax return confirmation for the transaction, copy of income tax
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2011-12
scrutiny order u/s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11. Further copy of income tax scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2012-13. 8. The submissions of the assessee alongwith documentary evidences did not find any favour of the AO who was of the firm belief that the transaction is not genuine and the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him by the provisions of section 68 of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 1Cr.
9. Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
10. Representatives of both the parties were heard at length and record carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT rules.
11. At the very outset, we find that for the relevant assessment year the assessee was required to discharge the onus cast upon him by the provisions of section 68 of the Act by establishing identity, genuineness of the transaction, capacity of the lender. We find that the assessee has successfully discharged the initial onus cast upon him in as much as the identity is not in doubt. The entire transaction is through banking channel and the capacity of the lender is established from its financial statement of accounts, confirmation and income tax return.
12. The entire basis of making the addition by the AO is the report received from the investigation wing Kolkata that MSPL is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry provider. However, for the relevant assessment year under consideration the assessee is not required to prove
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2011-12
the source of the source. Further we find that the co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Ravi Shankar Shendge in ITA No. 2609/M/2023 has accepted the genuineness of the loan transaction from the same Minaxi
Supplier Pvt. Ltd., wherein also the addition were made on the basis of the investigation report.
13. The co-ordinate Benches again in the case of Barcelona Mercantile
Company Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2346/Mum/2023 for the same assessment year had the occasion to consider for similar assessment year on account of money borrowed from Minaxi Supplier Pvt. Ltd. and deleted the same on similar set of facts. Again in the case of Nextgen Constructions Pvt.
Ltd. in ITA No. 3593/M/2019 the co-ordinate bench on identical set of facts where money was borrowed from Minaxi Supplier Pvt. Ltd. and the additions were made basis the report of investigation wing Kolkata has deleted the addition.
14. Considering the facts of the case in totality in the light of the decisions of the co-ordinate benches (supra), we do not find any merit in the impugned addition direct the AO to delete the same.
15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 14.10.2025 (ANIKESH BANERJEE)
(NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2011-12
Place: Mumbai
Date 14.10.2025
ANANDI. NAMBI/STENO
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ/ The Appellant
2. थ/ The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु / CIT
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
स
ािपत ित ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.