ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ANANYA IMPEX, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC
Before: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ACIT 232, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. Vs. Ananya Implex 515, Dalamal Chambers 211, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAFFA5803I Appellant
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue to be adjudicated is whether the loan alleged to have been taken from Bhavarlal Jain Group is genuine or not. The contention of Revenue in this case is that the Ld. AO received information from Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that the appellant took a loan which is only accommodation entry. In other words, the loan taken by the appellant from Bhavarlal Jain group is not genuine in the sense that appellant has routed his unaccounted money through that Bhavarlal Jain group companies. On this basis, the assessment was reopened and addition under section 68 was made by Ld. AO despite the denial of appellant.
On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition stating that there is no material with the Revenue to show that the appellant took loan from group. Since there is no proof of loan taken, whether genuine or not, the Ananya Implex
2
addition cannot be made under section 68 of the Act in the case of appellant, held by Ld. CIT(A) and the addition was deleted.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. DR relied on the assessment order.
During the proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant said an affidavit was also filed by the appellant that he did not take any loan from Bhavarlal Jain group and even filed a copy of bank account to show that there is no credit entry from the above party.
Heard both sides. The Revenue could not adduce any evidence to the effect that the appellant took loan from Bhavarlal Jain group of companies. The Revenue’s contention that the appellant took an accommodation entry cannot be accepted without any evidence especially when the appellant filed an affidavit to that effect and filed a copy of bank statement and it is held that the appellant discharged his onus of proof. The Revenue did not discharge its proof that appellant took loan to make an addition under section 68 of the Act. In view of the same, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
The appeal of Revenue is Dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/09/2025. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
Ananya Implex
BY ORDER,
////
(