ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI vs. NEHA AVIATION MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1248/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF NEHA AVIATION INCOME TAX, CENTRAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATE CIRCLE-25, DELHI LIMITED ROOM NO. 317 3RD FLOOR ARA RZ-A-83, ROAD NO -4, Vs. CENTRE JHANDEWALAN STREET NO-6, MAHIPALPUR, EXTENSION NEW DELHI-110037 NEW DELHI-110055, अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AACCN7234L

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT. DR ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Malav Goswami, Adv सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 06.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 12.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 27.10.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 26.03.2025 passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1 a. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the findings, the assessee has made payment of Rs. 1,75,59,653/- during the year under consideration to M/s Tish Consultants Private Limited which is nondescript companies and has no genuine business. The entity is managed and controlled by Shri Deepak Agarwal the entry operator. b. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the findings, the assessee during the year has paid Rs.2,00,00.000/- to M/s Odisha Finlease Private Limited which is a non-descript companies and has no genuine business and managed and controlled by Shri Aditya Jain, entry operator, who has admitted that these companies were controlled by his associates and used for the purpose of accommodation entries. c. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciated the fact that the findings, of search proceedings on the entry operator, Shri Deepak Agarwal well as the Galaxy Group, establishes that the assessee along with associated entities was indulged in accepting huge cash, out of-books, booked bogus expenses, and taking bogus accommodation entries aggregating "routing the unexplained money" in parallel black economy of entire Galaxy Group willingly to evade taxes as per the requirement of his beneficiaries. d. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the Non-descript entities involved with Sh. Deepak Agarwal gives non genuine transaction, on account of accommodation entries in the form of bogus loan/purchase/sales, which were given/taken in so a sophisticated manner with taking care of each step to give the image of legal transaction by utilizing web of bank accounts in different hanks as well as books of accounts in respective entities. e. It is settled position that once the counter party is found to be a paper company with no real business. Banking channel payments cannot confer legitimacy on the transaction (CIT V. N.R. Portfolio P. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del.). The CIT(A) erred in holding that repayment alone proves genuineness. On the contrary, repayment itself may be a circular movement of funds arranged to give colour of authenticity That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. g. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 3. The principal controversy raised by the appellant Revenue through the above grounds of appeal is regarding the deletion of addition by ld CIT(A) of Rs.2 crores and of Rs.1,75,59,653/- under section 68 made by the ld. AO. As per brief factual matrix of the case, the Revenue authorities had conducted a search upon Galaxy Group of cases and entry providers Shri Deepak Agarwal and Shri Himanshu Verma on 17.11.2021. Upon examination of seized documents inter alia comprising digital data, it was noted that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries. The factual matrix noted from the order of the ld. AO dated 22.03.2025 is as under:-

Page 3 of 8

of the assessee qua above transactions the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make the impugned additions of Rs.2 crores and Rs.1,75,59,653/- u/s 68 of the Act qua loan transactions entered with M/s Odissa Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and TISH Consultants Pvt. Ltd. respectively. Before the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee had pleaded that the all its loan transactions were genuine u/s 68 of the Act. It was also argued that the assessee has not taken any fresh loans during the year under consideration and the impugned transactions were a mere repayment of loans taken in earlier financial year. The ld. Assessing Officer however held that the assessee had indulged with accommodation entry providers and therefore concluded that the evidences produced by the assessee could not be relied upon. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer holding that the ld. Assessing Officer has not been able to adduce and place on records sufficient evidences to show that the transactions entered by the assessee were sham transactions and therefore unreliable. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued in favour of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the arguments taken during the appellate proceedings. The hypothesis of the present transactions merely being repayment of earlier loans was forcefully propounded. 6. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that this Tribunal as well as the Mumbai Tribunal have ruled that mere repayment of loan would not take away from it the blame of taken as a accommodation entry if sufficient evidences to this effect are available on records.

Page 4 of 8

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of J.K. Global ITA No.3260/Mum/2023 as well as of this Tribunal in the case of Global Stainless 3990/Del/2025. 7. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. We have noted that as far as reliance of the Revenue in the case of J.K. Global ITA No.3260/Mum/2023 is concerned, this Tribunal on identical facts had passed an order in the case of Bhawani Finvest Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6303/Del/2025 through order dated 25.03.2026 holding as under:- “8. We have heard rival submission in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the ld. AO has vividly demonstrated in his assessment order extracted hereinabove that the assessee was having connections with accommodation entry providers. We have also noted that the ld. AO has extensively brought out in the assessment order while analyzing statements of entry providers Shri Himanshu Verma and Shri Deepak Agarwal and their employees Ms. Sonia, etc that a web of shell company was created to route accommodation entries and that the assessee was beneficiary of one such company. On the issue of justification of loan qua its repayment, we have noted that a co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of J.K. Global (supra) held as under:- “..7. Considering the facts of the case in toto and in the light of the decisions of the coordinate bench (supra), we have no hesitation in confirming the addition made u/s 68 of the Act for the captioned Assessment years. The contention of the ld. counsel that the loans have been re-paid during the year under consideration therefore the set off of the same should also be given to the assessee does not hold any water as it has been established that the impugned loans were nothing but accommodation entries and the repayment is also nothing but return of accommodation entries therefore, the money which has been brought in the garb of unsecured loan is nothing but the

Page 5 of 8

unaccounted money of the assessee and the repayment of the same does not make any sense….” 9. Thus, we have noted that the argument of the assessee regarding the justification of impugned loan of Rs.2 crores on account of repayment cannot be accepted. In respectful compliance to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of J.K Global(supra), we are of the considered view that the relief accorded by the ld CIT(A) is not based upon correct understanding of the facts of the case. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the addition of Rs.2 crores made by the ld. AO. Similarly, we also confirm the addition made by the AO of Rs.15,06,164/- on account of interest and of Rs.6 lakhs on account of commission. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore allowed….” 8. We have further noted that in the case of Global Stainless (supra) on nearly identical facts, a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee had held that once a loan has been treated as bogus on account of having connections with accommodation entry providers, the repayment of such loans would not make them genuine. The Tribunal has held as under:-

assessees registered with the Registrar of Companies is also found to be not sufficient enough to prove the transaction genuine it is held that the unsecured loans received by the appellant as bogus. In that view of the matter, as the loan has already been held as bogus the repayment of loans in the subsequent years does not make the transaction genuine, in our considered opinion, is the correct observation of the authorities below. We have further considered the order passed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of J.K. Global, reported in 167 taxmann.com 15 which were relied upon the Ld. CIT(A). The addition made under Section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans taken from companies from 20.10.11 to 20.12.2013 as information received from the DGIT, Investigation that the assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans from the said companies operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain found to be rightly applicable on the identical facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The loans since having been repaid during the year under consideration, therefore, the set off of the same by the assessee as rejected by the ITAT Mumbai Bench is found to be squarely applicable in the instant case. As the impugned loans in the case in hand, is nothing but accommodation entries the return of accommodation entries by paying it off through banking channel cannot give a seal of sanctity to the impugned transactions already held “bogus”. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this appeal preferred by the assessee is found to be devoid of any merit, and, thus, dismissed.” 9. Thus, we have noted that the argument of the assessee regarding the justification of impugned loan of Rs.2 crores to Odissa Finalease Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.1,75,59,653/- to M/s TISH Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on account of repayment cannot be accepted. In respectful compliance to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of J.K Global(supra), of this Tribunal in the case of Global Stainless(supra) and in the case of Bhawani Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the relief accorded by the ld CIT(A) is not based upon correct understanding of the facts of the case. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the addition of Rs.2 crores and Rs.1,75,59,653/- made by the ld. AO. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHIR PAREEK] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12.08.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 8 of 8