ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SOMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, PUNE

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against separate orders, both dated 24.12.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [in short 'the

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 2 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

learned CIT(A)'], for Assessment Years 2014 learned CIT(A)'], for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015 15 and 2015-16. A common issue in dispute is involved in both these appeals and, common issue in dispute is involved in both these appeals and, common issue in dispute is involved in both these appeals and, therefore, the same were heard together and disposed of by way of therefore, the same were heard together and disposed of by way of therefore, the same were heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order fo this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

“1. On facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.34,73,229/-made under section 69A of the Income made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite tax Act, 1961, despite recording a clear finding that the impugned receipt of Rs.36,56,030/- from M/s recording a clear finding that the impugned receipt of Rs.36,56,030/ recording a clear finding that the impugned receipt of Rs.36,56,030/ Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Co Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited (DMSUCCSL), Credit Society Limited (DMSUCCSL), represented an accommodation entry and the transaction was not genuine. represented an accommodation entry and the transaction was not genuine. represented an accommodation entry and the transaction was not genuine. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere recording of the impugned receipt 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere recording of the impugned receipt 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere recording of the impugned receipt in the books of account as sales does not explain the true nature and source of in the books of account as sales does not explain the true nature in the books of account as sales does not explain the true nature the money, particularly when the so the money, particularly when the so-called sale transaction itself has been held to called sale transaction itself has been held to be sham and devoid of commercial substance. The deletion of the addition under be sham and devoid of commercial substance. The deletion of the addition under be sham and devoid of commercial substance. The deletion of the addition under section 69A is therefore contrary to settled principles of law. section 69A is therefore contrary to settled principles of law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was merely a facilitator of accommodation entries and not a beneficiary, without any merely a facilitator of accommodation entries and not a beneficiary, without any merely a facilitator of accommodation entries and not a beneficiary, without any conclusive evidence to establish that the entire amount, except alleged conclusive evidence to establish that the entire amount, except alleged conclusive evidence to establish that the entire amount, except alleged commission, was passed on commission, was passed on and that no part of the funds was retained by the and that no part of the funds was retained by the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly relied on an arbitrary and ad-hoc estimation of 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly relied on an arbitrary and ad 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly relied on an arbitrary and ad commission income at 5% of the accommodation entry amount, in the absence of commission income at 5% of the accommodation entry amount, in the absence of commission income at 5% of the accommodation entry amount, in the absence of any incriminating material, statement, o any incriminating material, statement, or comparable cases to justify such r comparable cases to justify such estimation, rendering the finding unsustainable. estimation, rendering the finding unsustainable.

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 3 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 4 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

received against sale of sugar and furnished, inter alia, ledger received against sale of sugar and furnished, inter alia, ledger received against sale of sugar and furnished, inter alia, ledger accounts, bank statements, sale bills, delivery memos and month- accounts, bank statements, sale bills, delivery memos and month accounts, bank statements, sale bills, delivery memos and month wise details of sugar sales in sup wise details of sugar sales in support of the transaction. port of the transaction. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation. Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation. Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation. He noted, inter alia, the findings emerging from the search in the He noted, inter alia, the findings emerging from the search in the He noted, inter alia, the findings emerging from the search in the case of Renukamata Society, the absence of any warehouse or ata Society, the absence of any warehouse or ata Society, the absence of any warehouse or sugar-utilisation facility relat utilisation facility relatable to the society, and the movement able to the society, and the movement of the amount received from the society to another bank account of of the amount received from the society to another bank account of of the amount received from the society to another bank account of the assessee within a short period. The Assessing Officer further the assessee within a short period. The Assessing Officer further the assessee within a short period. The Assessing Officer further noted that, although bank statements of various accounts had been noted that, although bank statements of various accounts had been noted that, although bank statements of various accounts had been furnished, the bank statement of the PDCC Bank account, to which statement of the PDCC Bank account, to which statement of the PDCC Bank account, to which the amount had allegedly been transferred, was not furnished. the amount had allegedly been transferred, was not furnished. the amount had allegedly been transferred, was not furnished. 3.1 On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Assessing Officer On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Assessing Officer On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Assessing Officer was of the view that funds were utilized by the assessee for its own was of the view that funds were utilized by the assessee for its own was of the view that funds were utilized by the assessee for its own benefit for transferring to pledge account and accordingly, ransferring to pledge account and accordingly, ransferring to pledge account and accordingly, concluded that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of the concluded that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of the concluded that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of the funds and treated the receipt of Rs.4,49,280/ funds and treated the receipt of Rs.4,49,280/- as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The reassessment was a reassessment was accordingly completed under section 147 vide ccordingly completed under section 147 vide order dated 14.02.2022. order dated 14.02.2022. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) accepted the Revenue's case to the extent CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) accepted the Revenue's case to the extent CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) accepted the Revenue's case to the extent that the transaction represented an accommodation entry, but did that the transaction represented an accommodation entry, but did that the transaction represented an accommodation entry, but did not agree with the Assessing Officer that the assessee was the not agree with the Assessing Officer that the assessee was th not agree with the Assessing Officer that the assessee was th

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 5 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

ultimate beneficiary of the entire amount. According to the learned ultimate beneficiary of the entire amount. According to the learned ultimate beneficiary of the entire amount. According to the learned CIT(A), the assessee acted as a facilitator of the accommodation CIT(A), the assessee acted as a facilitator of the accommodation CIT(A), the assessee acted as a facilitator of the accommodation entry and, therefore, the receipt itself could not be treated as entry and, therefore, the receipt itself could not be treated as entry and, therefore, the receipt itself could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A. The learned CIT(A) further unexplained money under section 69A. The learned CIT(A) unexplained money under section 69A. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had accounted for the receipt as sales observed that the assessee had accounted for the receipt as sales observed that the assessee had accounted for the receipt as sales and had furnished documents such as sales register, ledger and had furnished documents such as sales register, ledger and had furnished documents such as sales register, ledger account and delivery memo. At the same time, he found the account and delivery memo. At the same time, he found the account and delivery memo. At the same time, he found the transaction arrangement to be lacking in commercial substance, transaction arrangement to be lacking in commercial substance, transaction arrangement to be lacking in commercial substance, particularly since the invoice was raised in the name of rticularly since the invoice was raised in the name of rticularly since the invoice was raised in the name of Renukamata ata ata Society Society Society although, although, although, according according according to to to the the the assessee's assessee's assessee's explanation, the transaction had originated on the instructions of explanation, the transaction had originated on the instructions of explanation, the transaction had originated on the instructions of one Mr. Kamal Broker. one Mr. Kamal Broker. The learned CIT(A), therefore, held that the The learned CIT(A), therefore, held that the assessee was a facilitator rather than the beneficiary of the as a facilitator rather than the beneficiary of the as a facilitator rather than the beneficiary of the accommodation entry and sustained an addition of 5% of accommodation entry and sustained an addition of accommodation entry and sustained an addition of Rs.4,49,280/-, amounting to Rs.22,464/ , amounting to Rs.22,464/-, as commission income , as commission income, while deleting the balance addition of Rs.4,26,816/- made under while deleting the balance addition of Rs.4,26,816/ while deleting the balance addition of Rs.4,26,816/ section 69A of the Act section 69A of the Act. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: “6.3.1. The Ld AO made addition of Rs.4,49,820 u/s.69A on account of receipt of 6.3.1. The Ld AO made addition of Rs.4,49,820 u/s.69A on account of receipt of 6.3.1. The Ld AO made addition of Rs.4,49,820 u/s.69A on account of receipt of Rs.4,49,280 from M/s. Renukamata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Rs.4,49,280 from M/s. Renukamata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Rs.4,49,280 from M/s. Renukamata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd (RMSUCCSL) under the guise o Ltd (RMSUCCSL) under the guise of sale of sugar to RMSUCCSL. The business of f sale of sugar to RMSUCCSL. The business of RMSUCCSL is not trading sugar but rather it is into the business of providing RMSUCCSL is not trading sugar but rather it is into the business of providing RMSUCCSL is not trading sugar but rather it is into the business of providing mutual credit to its members. A society which is purely into finance business does mutual credit to its members. A society which is purely into finance business does mutual credit to its members. A society which is purely into finance business does not do any trading in goods. The search findings u not do any trading in goods. The search findings u/s.132 in the case of /s.132 in the case of RMSUCCSL on 26.05.2017 clearly revealed that RMSUCCSL was engaged in RMSUCCSL on 26.05.2017 clearly revealed that RMSUCCSL was engaged in RMSUCCSL on 26.05.2017 clearly revealed that RMSUCCSL was engaged in transfer of funds to the beneficiaries so identified. The appellant-company was transfer of funds to the beneficiaries so identified. The appellant transfer of funds to the beneficiaries so identified. The appellant identified as one such beneficiary. During appellate proceedings, the AR identified as one such beneficiary. During appellate proceedings, the AR identified as one such beneficiary. During appellate proceedings, the AR reiterates that the receipt of amount of Rs.4,49,820 was against sale of sugar in hat the receipt of amount of Rs.4,49,820 was against sale of sugar in hat the receipt of amount of Rs.4,49,820 was against sale of sugar in support of which he claims to have all relevant documents such as sugar sales support of which he claims to have all relevant documents such as sugar sales support of which he claims to have all relevant documents such as sugar sales register, ledger account of RMSUCCSL, delivery memo with truck no., etc., It is, register, ledger account of RMSUCCSL, delivery memo with truck no., etc., It is, register, ledger account of RMSUCCSL, delivery memo with truck no., etc., It is, however to be noted that it however to be noted that it is necessary to prepare all the documentary proofs is necessary to prepare all the documentary proofs

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 6 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

even in cases of accommodation entries. Therefore, having in possession of these even in cases of accommodation entries. Therefore, having in possession of these even in cases of accommodation entries. Therefore, having in possession of these documentary proofs does not conclusively establish the genuineness of the documentary proofs does not conclusively establish the genuineness of the documentary proofs does not conclusively establish the genuineness of the transactions in the light of the search findings. transactions in the light of the search findings. search findings. It was also search findings. It was also submitted by the AR that the money received of Rs.4,49,280 from Renuka was submitted by the AR that the money received of Rs.4,49,280 from Renuka was submitted by the AR that the money received of Rs.4,49,280 from Renuka was initially credited to one TAX DEP Shri Kamal Broker and then as per instructions initially credited to one TAX DEP Shri Kamal Broker and then as per instructions initially credited to one TAX DEP Shri Kamal Broker and then as per instructions of Kamal Broker the money was transferred to Renuka account. He also of Kamal Broker the money was transferred to Renuka account. He also of Kamal Broker the money was transferred to Renuka account. He also submitted sugar sold to Renuka at Rs.4,49,280 was debited to Renuka account ubmitted sugar sold to Renuka at Rs.4,49,280 was debited to Renuka account ubmitted sugar sold to Renuka at Rs.4,49,280 was debited to Renuka account vide invoice no.6092 dated 27.03.2024. vide invoice no.6092 dated 27.03.2024. 6.3.2. As per AR's submissions the appellant 6.3.2. As per AR's submissions the appellant-assessee sold sugar on 26.03.2014 assessee sold sugar on 26.03.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,49,280 on the instructions of one Mr.Kamal for a sale consideration of Rs.4,49,280 on the instructions of for a sale consideration of Rs.4,49,280 on the instructions of Broker. As per AR the assessee received sum of Rs.4,49,820 on 26.03.2014 in its Broker. As per AR the assessee received sum of Rs.4,49,820 on 26.03.2014 in its Broker. As per AR the assessee received sum of Rs.4,49,820 on 26.03.2014 in its bank account and therefore the assessee debited its bank account and credited bank account and therefore the assessee debited its bank account and credited bank account and therefore the assessee debited its bank account and credited Kamal Broker A/c (as advance), and on 27.03.2014 the assessee received Kamal Broker A/c (as advance), and on 27.03.2014 the assessee received Kamal Broker A/c (as advance), and on 27.03.2014 the assessee received instructions from Kamal Broker to deliver the sugar to Renuka and therefore rom Kamal Broker to deliver the sugar to Renuka and therefore rom Kamal Broker to deliver the sugar to Renuka and therefore Kamal Broker A/c is debited and correspondingly Renuka's account is credited Kamal Broker A/c is debited and correspondingly Renuka's account is credited Kamal Broker A/c is debited and correspondingly Renuka's account is credited and thereafter sales invoice dated 27.03.2014 was raised against Renuka and thereafter sales invoice dated 27.03.2014 was raised against Renuka and thereafter sales invoice dated 27.03.2014 was raised against Renuka and as such Renuka A/c is debited and Sales A as such Renuka A/c is debited and Sales A/c is credited. As per these /c is credited. As per these submissions the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 was already a recognised as sales. submissions the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 was already a recognised as sales. submissions the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 was already a recognised as sales. Delivery of sugar to RMSUCCSL is not an issue as far as the appellant's claim is Delivery of sugar to RMSUCCSL is not an issue as far as the appellant's claim is Delivery of sugar to RMSUCCSL is not an issue as far as the appellant's claim is concerned but how can there be sale invoice against M/s.RMSUCCSL when this concerned but how can there be sale invoice against M/s.RMSUCCSL when th concerned but how can there be sale invoice against M/s.RMSUCCSL when th entity did not place any purchase order with the appellant-assessee? In bill-to entity did not place any purchase order with the appellant entity did not place any purchase order with the appellant and ship-to model bill is always raised against the purchaser who places the to model bill is always raised against the purchaser who places the to model bill is always raised against the purchaser who places the order and goods are delivered to any consignee other than the purchaser. In the order and goods are delivered to any consignee other than the purchaser. In the order and goods are delivered to any consignee other than the purchaser. In the instant case, the appellant e appellant-assessee did not raise the sale invoice against the assessee did not raise the sale invoice against the sugar merchant, Mr.Kamal Broker who placed the order with the assessee; sugar merchant, Mr.Kamal Broker who placed the order with the assessee; sugar merchant, Mr.Kamal Broker who placed the order with the assessee; instead it raised invoice against M/s.RMSUCCSL without any purchase order instead it raised invoice against M/s.RMSUCCSL without any purchase order instead it raised invoice against M/s.RMSUCCSL without any purchase order from it. Though the buyer has discretion to ge from it. Though the buyer has discretion to get the delivery of a product at any t the delivery of a product at any place of his choice but he cannot instruct the seller to raise the invoice against place of his choice but he cannot instruct the seller to raise the invoice against place of his choice but he cannot instruct the seller to raise the invoice against some other party (M/s.RMSUCCSL, in this case). In the light of the investigations some other party (M/s.RMSUCCSL, in this case). In the light of the investigations some other party (M/s.RMSUCCSL, in this case). In the light of the investigations conducted against M/s.RMSUCCSL and also in view of the lacunae in the conducted against M/s.RMSUCCSL and also in view of the l conducted against M/s.RMSUCCSL and also in view of the l arrangement of the transactions it is concluded that the transaction of receipt of arrangement of the transactions it is concluded that the transaction of receipt of arrangement of the transactions it is concluded that the transaction of receipt of Rs.4,49,280 is an accommodation entry though it is recorded as sale in the books Rs.4,49,280 is an accommodation entry though it is recorded as sale in the books Rs.4,49,280 is an accommodation entry though it is recorded as sale in the books of the assessee. Since this receipt was accounted as sale by the assessee, the of the assessee. Since this receipt was accounted as sale by the assessee, the of the assessee. Since this receipt was accounted as sale by the assessee, the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 cannot be unexplained money u/s.69A, while at the same receipt of Rs.4,49,280 cannot be unexplained money u/s.69A, while at the same receipt of Rs.4,49,280 cannot be unexplained money u/s.69A, while at the same time this receipt is to be treated as accommodation entry. Therefore, the time this receipt is to be treated as accommodation entry. Therefore, the time this receipt is to be treated as accommodation entry. Therefore, the appellant-assessee is a facilitator of accommodation entry for the benefit of assessee is a facilitator of accommodation entry for the benefit of assessee is a facilitator of accommodation entry for the benefit of M/s.RMSUCCSL 6.3.3. In all cases of accommodation entries the facilitators receive commission l cases of accommodation entries the facilitators receive commission l cases of accommodation entries the facilitators receive commission either in the books or outside the books and the beneficiaries get benefit of full either in the books or outside the books and the beneficiaries get benefit of full either in the books or outside the books and the beneficiaries get benefit of full deduction of bogus purchases. In the light of the discussion in the preceding deduction of bogus purchases. In the light of the discussion in the preceding deduction of bogus purchases. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs and the submiss paragraphs and the submissions of the appellant, it appears that the appellant ions of the appellant, it appears that the appellant- assessee is not a beneficiary but a facilitator of the bogus transactions for the assessee is not a beneficiary but a facilitator of the bogus transactions for the assessee is not a beneficiary but a facilitator of the bogus transactions for the benefit of RMSUCCSL and the persons/entities related to RMSUCCSL. benefit of RMSUCCSL and the persons/entities related to RMSUCCSL. benefit of RMSUCCSL and the persons/entities related to RMSUCCSL. Therefore, the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 is not unexplained receipt u/s.69A. But Therefore, the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 is not unexplained receipt u/s.69A. But Therefore, the receipt of Rs.4,49,280 is not unexplained receipt u/s.69A. But addition @5% of Rs.4,49,280 working out to addition @5% of Rs.4,49,280 working out to Rs.22,464 Rs.22,464 is sustained as

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 7 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

commissioner income (not u/s. 69A) and hence the balance addition of commissioner income (not u/s. 69A) and hence the balance addition of commissioner income (not u/s. 69A) and hence the balance addition of Rs.4,26,816/- u/s. 69A is deleted. u/s. 69A is deleted. dingly, the ground nos. 1 and 2 are partly allowed.” Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 and 2 are 5. We have heard the rival submissions We have heard the rival submissions of the parties of the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. The controversy carefully perused the material available on record. The controversy carefully perused the material available on record. The controversy before us is narrow. The learned CIT(A) has accepted, in substance, before us is narrow. The learned CIT(A) has accepted, in substance, before us is narrow. The learned CIT(A) has accepted, in substance, that the receipt of Rs.4,49,280/ receipt of Rs.4,49,280/- represented an accommodation represented an accommodation entry, but has departed from the Assessing Officer's conclusion that entry, but has departed from the Assessing Officer's conclusion that entry, but has departed from the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the assessee was the beneficiary of the entire amount. He has the assessee was the beneficiary of the entire amount. He has the assessee was the beneficiary of the entire amount. He has instead inferred that the assessee was a facilitator and estimated its instead inferred that the assessee was a facilitator and estimated its instead inferred that the assessee was a facilitator and estimated its commission at 5%. The Revenue's grievance is that there is no The Revenue's grievance is that there is no material on record to support the learned CIT(A)'s finding that the material on record to support the learned CIT(A)'s finding that the material on record to support the learned CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee acted merely as a facilitator and retained only commission, assessee acted merely as a facilitator and retained only commission, assessee acted merely as a facilitator and retained only commission, whereas the material available before the Assessing Officer whereas the material available before the Assessing Offic whereas the material available before the Assessing Offic indicated that the funds received by the assessee were transferred indicated that the funds received by the assessee were transferred indicated that the funds received by the assessee were transferred to another account of the assessee and the corresponding bank to another account of the assessee and the corresponding bank to another account of the assessee and the corresponding bank statement was not furnished. statement was not furnished.

5.1 On examination of the record, we find that the learned CIT(A)'s On examination of the record, we find that the learned CIT(A)'s On examination of the record, we find that the learned CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assesse conclusion that the assessee was merely a facilitator is not e was merely a facilitator is not supported by any specific evidence brought on record. The assessee supported by any specific evidence brought on record. The assessee supported by any specific evidence brought on record. The assessee has not demonstrated through any contemporaneous material the has not demonstrated through any contemporaneous material the has not demonstrated through any contemporaneous material the existence of an arrangement under which existence of an arrangement under which the amount received from the amount received from Renukamata Society was ata Society was merely routed through it against a merely routed through it against a predetermined commission. predetermined commission. More importantly, the material referred More importantly, the material referred to by the Assessing Officer shows that the amount of Rs.4,49,280/- to by the Assessing Officer shows that the amount of Rs.4,49,280/ to by the Assessing Officer shows that the amount of Rs.4,49,280/

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 8 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

was received in the assessee's bank account and was thereafter was received in the assessee's bank account and was thereafter was received in the assessee's bank account and was thereafter transferred to another ac transferred to another account of the assessee. The Assessing count of the assessee. The Assessing Officer specifically noted that the bank statement of the PDCC Bank Officer specifically noted that the bank statement of the PDCC Bank Officer specifically noted that the bank statement of the PDCC Bank account, in which the amount was stated to have been transferred, account, in which the amount was stated to have been transferred, account, in which the amount was stated to have been transferred, or money ultimately parked, or money ultimately parked, was not furnished. Thus, the material was not furnished. Thus, the material available on record did not establish that the assessee had merely did not establish that the assessee had merely did not establish that the assessee had merely passed on the entire amount to another person or entity after passed on the entire amount to another person or entity after passed on the entire amount to another person or entity after retaining only a commission. Once the learned CIT(A) chose to retaining only a commission. Once the learned CIT(A) chose to retaining only a commission. Once the learned CIT(A) chose to depart from the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee was depart from the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee was depart from the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee was the beneficiary, the burden lay upon the material on record to he burden lay upon the material on record to he burden lay upon the material on record to support the alternative finding that the assessee was only a support the alternative finding that the assessee was only a support the alternative finding that the assessee was only a facilitator and had earned commission of 5%. We find no such facilitator and had earned commission of 5%. We find no such facilitator and had earned commission of 5%. We find no such material or evidence in the record. The estimation of commission at material or evidence in the record. The estimation of commission at material or evidence in the record. The estimation of commission at 5% is, therefore, not 5% is, therefore, not founded upon any demonstrated transaction, founded upon any demonstrated transaction, statement, comparable case or other material brought on record. statement, comparable case or other material brought on record. statement, comparable case or other material brought on record. We are conscious that the assessee had furnished documents in We are conscious that the assessee had furnished documents in We are conscious that the assessee had furnished documents in support of the sale transaction. However, the learned CIT(A) himself support of the sale transaction. However, the learned CIT(A) himself support of the sale transaction. However, the learned CIT(A) himself found that the transaction was not a genuine sale transaction and ansaction was not a genuine sale transaction and ansaction was not a genuine sale transaction and represented an accommodation entry. Having reached that represented an accommodation entry. Having reached that represented an accommodation entry. Having reached that conclusion, the question whether the assessee was the beneficiary conclusion, the question whether the assessee was the beneficiary conclusion, the question whether the assessee was the beneficiary or merely a facilitator had to be determined on the basis of the or merely a facilitator had to be determined on the basis of the or merely a facilitator had to be determined on the basis of the actual flow of funds and other corroborative evidence. The record, and other corroborative evidence. The record, as presently available, does not substantiate the latter conclusion. as presently available, does not substantiate the latter conclusion. as presently available, does not substantiate the latter conclusion.

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 9 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

5.2 The learned CIT(A), therefore, in our considered view, was not The learned CIT(A), therefore, in our considered view, was not The learned CIT(A), therefore, in our considered view, was not justified in substituting the Assessing Officer's finding of the justified in substituting the Assessing Officer's finding of the justified in substituting the Assessing Officer's finding of the assessee being the beneficiary with a finding that the assessee was assessee being the beneficiary with a finding that the assessee was assessee being the beneficiary with a finding that the assessee was merely a facilitator earning 5% commission, without any supporting merely a facilitator earning 5% commission, without any supp merely a facilitator earning 5% commission, without any supp evidence. We accordingly set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) We accordingly set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) We accordingly set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the addition of on this issue and restore the addition of Rs.4,49,280/ Rs.4,49,280/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act. The grounds the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act. The grounds the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 18/ /08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/08/2026 /2026 Kunal Kr. P.S.

ITA 2288 & 2289/MUM/2026 ITA 10 Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

Copy of the Order forwarded Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai