ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI vs. GREENSCAPE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5695/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2026AY 2020-2119 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditors, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions were established. The bank statements showed that loans were advanced through normal banking channels from disclosed accounts, with no evidence of cash deposits preceding the loans. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observations regarding 'nominal income' and 'TDS refund' of lenders, even if factually correct, could not override audited balance sheets disclosing substantial net worth, especially when these statements were not shown to be fabricated. The AO had not undertaken any inquiry to discredit the audited financial statements or demonstrated that the funds were fictitious. The Tribunal also considered that statements of third parties, particularly when general, disputed, or retracted, cannot by themselves displace documentary evidence unless supported by independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that Coordinate Benches had previously examined the financial affairs of these very lender companies in the assessee's group cases and other matters, accepting their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. Crucially, for subsequent Assessment Years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), loans from substantially the same parties were accepted as genuine, with no distinguishing factual features presented for the year under appeal. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 28,00,208/- were deleted. The appeals for subsequent AYs were dismissed on identical grounds.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The core dispute pertains to additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unsecured loans. For AY 2013-14, the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on account of alleged accommodation entries and disallowed interest of Rs. 28,00,208/-. This reassessment was initiated after a survey conducted on the assessee's premises, which reportedly revealed that certain unsecured loans were not genuine. The assessee provided loan confirmations, bank statements, income-tax returns of lenders, and ROC status. The AO, however, did not find this sufficient, relying on statements from third parties and findings of nominal income and TDS refunds from lenders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 5,50,00,000/-, without properly appreciating the facts and that the addition was based on survey action and subsequent inquiries? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68, despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 28,00,208/-, without properly appreciating that the addition related to interest paid on non-genuine transactions in the form of unsecured loans? Assessee's Contentions (implied from CIT(A)'s findings): The assessee contended that it had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, IT returns of lenders, and ROC status. The assessee argued that the statements relied upon by the AO were general, from third parties, retracted, or unsupported by independent material. The financial statements of lenders showed sufficient share capital, reserves, and liquidity, and transactions were through banking channels. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the AO's findings based on survey, post-survey inquiries, and statements of principal persons who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The Revenue contended that the addition was based on evidence gathered during survey and assessment proceedings, indicating that the lender entities had nominal income and claimed TDS refunds, and that the loans were accommodation entries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, CA & Prateek Jain
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, CIT- DR, Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi-
Hearing: 23/07/2026Pronounced: 30/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Greenscape Developers Private Room No. 402, Kautilya Limited, 1908, Plot No. 4&6 Vs. Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai, Cyber One, Sector 30-A, Navi Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai, Vashi S.O (Thane), Maharashtra- 400051 PAN NO. AACCG 4829 L Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, CA & Prateek Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, CIT- DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi- SR.DR

Date of Hearing : 23/07/2026 Date of pronouncement : 30/07/2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These appeals by the Revenue are arising from separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 51, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Years 2013- 14, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 respectively. As common issue in

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

disputes is involved in these appeals and, therefore, same were heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and avoid repetition.

2.

Firstly, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2013- 14. The grounds raised are reproduced as under:

i. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 5,50,00,000/-without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the Survey Action carried out u/s 133A in the case of assessee company by the investigation Wing and on the basis of enquires carried in the course of survey proceedings, post survey proceedings and in the course of assessment proceedings? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 28,00,208/-without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was related to the interest paid on non-genuine transaction in the form of unsecured loan? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings recorded by the AO, elaborately discussed in the assessment order, which were based on enquiries carried out in the course of assessment proceedings and back by investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing and on the basis of statements recorded in the course of S&S Action and Survey action of the principal person of the group, Shri Pravin Kumar Jain & Jitendra Kumar Jain and other, wherein,

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

they had categorically admitted that they have provided accommodation entries.?

2.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 47,40,560/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income vide order U/s 143(3) dated 29.03.2016.

2.2 Subsequently, a survey was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 26.11.2019, during which it was noticed that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from various parties. It was further seen that the evidences gathered during the survey and post survey proceedings, which, according to the Revenue, indicated that certain of these loans were accommodation entries obtained in the garb of genuine unsecured loans.

2.3 On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Ld. AO recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, after obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 10.03.2021. The assessee's objections to the reopening, filed on 23.06.2021, were disposed of by a speaking order dated 02.11.2021.

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

2.4 In the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO called upon the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions in respect of unsecured loans taken during the year. The assessee, in response, filed (i) loan confirmations, (ii) bank statements of the loan-creditors, (iii) income-tax returns of the loan-creditors, and (iv) evidence of the active status of the said companies on the website of the Registrar of Companies (“ROC”)/Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

2.5 The Ld. AO did not accept this material as sufficient. According to him, merely filing of confirmation and return of acknowledgement do not prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He relied upon (a) statements recorded during the survey and post-survey proceedings of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, Shri Vinayak G. More, Shri Pukhraj L. Pokhrana and Shri Anil S. Jain, to hold that these companies were being operated and managed by accommodation entry providers; and (b) findings during survey and post survey proceedings that the lender-entities reflected nominal income and claimed refund of TDS, and then held that six of the lenders, out of a total of Rs. 29.88 crores of unsecured loans, were accommodation entry providers. The particulars of the amounts so added under Section 68 are tabulated below:

Sr No Name of the party Amount 1 Anshul Gems Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

2 Manan Trading Pvt Ltd 20,00,000 3 Manhar Impex Pvt Ltd 50,00,000 4 Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd (Controlled and 2,30,00,000 operated by Pravin Kumar Jain) 5 Nakshatra Business Pvt Ltd (Controlled 50,00,000 and operated by Pravin Kumar Jain) 6 Galary Trading Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000 Total 5,50,00,000

2.6 The Ld. AO accordingly made an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and further disallowed interest of Rs. 28,00,208/- claimed by the assessee on the corresponding loans, treating the same as consequential. The total income was assessed at Rs. 6,25,40,770/-.

3.

On appeal, the assessee challenged both the validity of the reassessment as well as the additions made under section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment. However, on merits, after an elaborate examination of the assessment order, the statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer, the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and the judicial precedents governing the issue, deleted the additions.

3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) first analysed the evidentiary value of the statements of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, Shri Vinayak G. More, Shri Pukhraj L. Pokhrana and Shri Anil S. Jain, on which substantial reliance had been placed by the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the statements were either general in nature, recorded in

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

proceedings concerning third parties, subsequently retracted, or were unsupported by any independent material connecting the assessee with the alleged accommodation entry operations. The Ld. CIT(A.) further observed that no incriminating material, cash trail or other corroborative evidence was found either during the survey or thereafter to establish that the impugned loans represented the assessee's own unaccounted money introduced through the lender companies.

3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter examined the three essential ingredients of section 68, namely, the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Upon appreciation of the confirmations, PAN details, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements and other statutory records produced by the assessee, he recorded a finding that the identity of all the lenders stood duly established. He further noticed that the financial statements of the respective lender companies disclosed sufficient share capital, reserves and liquidity to justify advancement of the loans, while the bank statements demonstrated that the transactions were carried out through normal banking channels without any cash deposits immediately preceding the advancement of loans. He also found that the loans were supported by confirmations, interest payments after deduction of tax at source

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

and subsequent repayments, thereby lending further credibility to the transactions.

3.3 While arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) also took note of a series of decisions rendered by different Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal wherein the very same lender companies had been examined and their financial capacity as well as the genuineness of similar loan transactions had been accepted. Respectfully following those decisions and on independent appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged the burden cast upon it under section 68 and that the Assessing Officer had failed to rebut such evidence by bringing any cogent material on record. He, accordingly, deleted the addition of ₹5,50,00,000/- made under section 68 together with the consequential disallowance of interest.

4.

At the outset, before us, the Ld. DR filed an additional grounds raised by the AO and submitted that the same might be admitted for adjudication. The relevant additional ground raised by the Revenue is reproduced as under:

i. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in admitting and relying upon additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without recording any reasons in writing for such admission and without affording an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence or furnish his comments, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Rule

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

46A(3), and rendering the appellate order bad in law and liable to be set aside." ii. The Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing."

4.1 The grounds raised by the revenue being purely legal in nature and not requiring investigation of the fresh facts and same is admitted for adjudication in view of the settled principle held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. NTPC Ltd. 222 ITR 383(SC).

4.2. In support of the additional ground, the Ld. DR submitted that firstly, para 7.8 of the assessment order records that the assessee had furnished only the bank statement of the assessee-company and not of the unsecured loan-parties, in order to prove their creditworthiness; and (ii) secondly that the audited financial statements, bank statements and details of share capital and reserves of each of the lender-companies, referred to at page 67 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and placed on record during the appellate proceedings, constituted “additional evidence” within the meaning of Rule 46A of the Rules, which could not have been admitted or relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) without compliance with the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (3) thereof.

4.3 Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to paras 5.1 and 5.3 of the assessment order, wherein

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

the Ld. AO has himself recorded that the assessee had filed bank statements in respect of all the unsecured loan-parties, and to para 6 of the assessment order, which reproduces the assessee's submission acknowledging that loan confirmations, bank statements of the unsecured loan-parties and their income-tax returns were filed. It was accordingly submitted that no material was placed before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time, and that the allegation of violation of Rule 46A was factually incorrect and misconceived

4.4 We have heard the rival submission of the parties on the issue raised under the additional ground. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The assessment order itself, in paras 5.1, 5.3 and 6, records in unambiguous terms that the bank statements, loan confirmations and income- tax returns of the loan-creditors were filed by the assessee before the Ld. AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. DR has not been able to demonstrate, with reference to the record, that any specific document relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) including the audited financial statements disclosing the reserves of the lender-companies, was placed before the appellate authority for the first time and was not available to, or considered by, the Ld. AO. In the absence of any material answering the description of “additional evidence”, the question of compliance

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

with Rule 46A(3) does not arise. The additional ground raised by the Revenue is, accordingly, devoid of merit and is dismissed.

5.

Before us, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee failed to establish the identity of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the loans received from the aforesaid parties and, therefore, AO is justifying making the addition. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition merely following the decision of the other Coordinate Benches.

5.1 Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3698, 4593, 4594, 4675, 4687, 4285, 4346 & 4586/MUM/2025. In the case of assessee itself, wherein almost all the parties are appearing from whom the assessee has taken loan during the year under consideration. Thus, it is the contention of the assessee that very same parties have already been held to be having creditworthiness and transactions have been held to be genuine. Ld. Counsel provided a chart where in relevant Assessment Years his unsecured loan parties have been held to be explained. For ready reference, a chart filed by the assessee indicating the AY in which particular party has been held explained is reproduced; -

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 11 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

Sr Name of Party 2013-14 2018- 2019- 2020- Total Remarks . 19 20 21 N o. Section under 147 143(3) 147 143 which order is passed 1 Casper Enterprises 2,30,00,0 - - - 2,30,00,0 Same findings Private Limited 00 00 in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 2 Nakshtra Business 50,00,00 - - - 50,00,000 Same findings Private Limited 0 in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 3 Manhar Impex 50,00,00 - - - 50,00,000 Same party in Private Limited 0 AY 2014-15 4 Suparshva - 21,00,0 - - 21,00,000 Same findings Diamond Private 00 in AY 2014-15 Limited 5 Galary Trading 1,00,00,0 1,50,00 - - 2,50,00,0 Same party in Private Limited 00 ,000 00 AY 2017-18 6 Manan Trading 20,00,00 - - - 20,00,000 Same party in Company Private 0 AY 2017-18 Limited 7 Anshul Gems 1,00,00,0 - - - 1,00,00,0 Same party in Private Limited 00 00 AY 2017-18 8 Adinath - 6,04,00 - - 6,04,00,0 Same findings Merchandise ,000 00 in AY 2015-16 Private Limited to 2017-18 9 Adroit Exports - 45,00,0 5,00,0 1,43,5 6,88,50,0 Same party in Private Limited 00 0,000 0,000 00 AY 2017-18 10 DNB Multitrade - 75,00,0 2,25,0 - 3,00,00,0 Same findings India Private 00 0,000 00 in AY 2015-16 Limited to 2017-18 11 Granth Exim - 2,10,00 - - 2,10,00,0 Same findings Private Limited ,000 00 in AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 12 Maniratnam - 30,00,0 - - 30,00,000 Same findings Exports Private 00 in AY 2015-16 Limited to 2017-18 13 Myron Trade - 1,10,00 - - 1,10,00,0 Same party in Private Limited ,000 00 AY 2017-18 14 Rajdhani - 65,00,0 - - 65,00,000 Same findings Diamonds Private 00 in AY 2014-15 Limited 15 Rati Diamonds - 1,70,00 - - 1,70,00,0 Same findings Private Limited ,000 00 in AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 Total 5,50,00, 14,80, 7,25,0 1,43,5 28,98,50, 000 00,000 0,000 0,000 000

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 12 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

5.2 During the course of the hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the various documents including confirmation, balance- sheets, profit and loss account etc. in respect of the all unsecured loan parties was referred and he explained that each and every party was having sufficient liquidity or source for advancing loan to the assessee.

6.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and examined the material placed before us. The controversy before us is essentially one of appreciation of evidence. The Revenue contends that the unsecured loans aggregating to ₹5.50 crore received by the assessee from six companies are merely accommodation entries, whereas the assessee maintains that the transactions are genuine borrowings duly supported by documentary evidence and stand covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches rendered in respect of the very same lenders.

6.1 The foundation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer rests principally on the statements recorded from certain third parties during search, survey and post-survey proceedings, namely Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, Shri Vinayak G. More, Shri Pukhraj Pokhrana and Shri Anil S. Jain. According to the Assessing Officer, these statements reveal that some of the lender companies were controlled by entry operators or were engaged in providing

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 13 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer has also referred to the Inspector's enquiries, the comparatively meagre income disclosed by some of the lenders and the alleged absence of substantial business activities in those concerns to conclude that they lacked the financial capacity to advance loans of such magnitude. Proceeding on this premise, he held that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions within the meaning of section 68.

6.2 The assessee, on the other hand, has consistently maintained that the entire addition proceeds on suspicion rather than evidence. It was pointed out that complete documentary evidence was furnished during the assessment proceedings itself, including confirmations from every lender, PAN, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements evidencing transfer of funds through normal banking channels, details of interest paid after deduction of tax at source and the subsequent repayment of part of the loans. According to the assessee, these documents sufficiently established the identity of every lender, their financial capacity as well as the genuineness of the transactions. It was further submitted that no material whatsoever was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that any part of the money advanced by the lenders had emanated from the coffers of the assessee or had returned to the lenders in cash. The assessee also

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 14 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

emphasised that the very same lender companies have repeatedly been held by different Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal to possess the necessary creditworthiness and that loans advanced by them have been accepted as genuine.

6.3 Having examined the entire material, we find considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. AO doubted the identity of the six lenders principally on the ground that they could not be physically located at the time of field enquiry. We are unable to accept this as determinative. The assessee has placed on record PAN, certificates of incorporation, ROC/MCA filings and income-tax returns of each lender, establishing their due incorporation and continued legal existence and compliance status. The Assessing Officer has not disputed that all the lender companies are duly incorporated entities assessed to income tax. Their statutory existence is borne out from the records of the Registrar of Companies, their PAN details and their regular income-tax filings. Thus, the identity of the creditors cannot be said to remain unproved merely because some of them were not found available during local enquiries conducted years after the transactions had taken place. We accordingly hold that the identity of all six lenders stands duly established.

6.4 The assessee has placed on record the audited financial statements of each lender, disclosing reserves and surplus

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 15 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

substantially in excess of the loan amounts advanced, as summarised below:

Lender Reserves (Rs. in Cr.) Loan Advanced (Rs.) Anshul Gems Pvt. Ltd. 213.53 1,00,00,000 Manhar Impex Pvt. Ltd. 164.03 50,00,000 Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 126.22 2,30,00,000 Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd. 108.58 50,00,000 Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 29.63 20,00,000 Galary Trading Pvt. Ltd. 3.53 1,00,00,000

6.5 The audited financial statements placed on record disclose substantial share capital, reserves and surplus and corresponding availability of funds. The bank statements further demonstrate that the loans were advanced through normal banking channels from disclosed bank accounts and there is no finding by the Assessing Officer of any cash deposit immediately preceding the issuance of the cheques. The observations of the Ld. AO regarding “nominal income” and “TDS refund” in the returns of the lenders, even if factually correct, cannot by themselves override audited balance sheets disclosing substantial net worth, particularly where such balance sheets have not been shown to be fabricated or unreliable. The Assessing Officer has not undertaken any enquiry to discredit the audited financial statements nor has he demonstrated that the funds reflected therein were themselves fictitious. Once such primary evidence stood produced, the initial burden cast upon the assessee under section 68 stood duly discharged.

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 16 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

6.6 The principal reliance of the Revenue is on the statements of certain third parties alleging that some of these companies were engaged in providing accommodation entries. However, those statements, by themselves, cannot conclude the issue against the assessee. In the first place, most of them are general in nature and describe the alleged modus operandi of certain concerns without specifically demonstrating how the loans advanced to the present assessee represented accommodation entries. Secondly, wherever the statements make a reference to the assessee, no independent material has been brought on record to corroborate the allegation that the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money in the guise of loans. There is neither any evidence of cash movement from the assessee nor any material discovered during the survey establishing such a cash trail. It is well settled that a statement, particularly when disputed or retracted, cannot by itself displace contemporaneous documentary evidence unless supported by independent corroboration.

6.7 We also find that the Ld. CIT(A), before granting relief, has not proceeded merely on the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the assessee but has also examined the judicial precedents concerning these very lender companies. It is not in dispute before us that in assessee's own group cases and in several other matters, Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have examined the financial

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 17 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

affairs of these lenders and have accepted their creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of the transactions.

6.8 It is significant, and in our view lends considerable weight to the case of the assessee, that in its own case for subsequent Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, loans from substantially the very same set of parties — including M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., M/s Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd., M/s Manhar Impex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Galary Trading Pvt. Ltd., M/s Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Anshul Gems Pvt. Ltd. , came to be accepted as genuine, either in assessment or in appeal, culminating in decisions of Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3698, 4593, 4594, 4675, 4687, 4285, 4346 & 4586/Mum/2025. The chart placed before us by the ld Counsel demonstrated that above lenders have been accepted while adjudicating identical controversies. The Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing factual feature in the year under appeal which would justify taking a contrary view. We find ourselves in agreement with the said approach. Judicial discipline equally requires that where identical parties, identical evidence and identical issues have already been examined by Coordinate Benches, a contrary view ought not to be taken in the absence of any distinguishing material.

6.9 On a cumulative consideration of the entire material, we are satisfied that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 18 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

cast upon it under section 68 by establishing the identity of the creditors, their financial capacity and the genuineness of the transactions. The Revenue, on the other hand, has not been able to rebut the documentary evidence by bringing on record any cogent material establishing that the impugned loans represented the assessee's own unaccounted money routed back through the lender companies. The addition, therefore, rests primarily upon suspicion arising from general statements of third parties, which, in the facts of the present case, is insufficient to sustain an addition under section 68.

6.10 We, therefore, find no infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹5,50,00,000/- made under section 68.

7.

The ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal are in respect of the interest in respect of the unsecured loan parties. since the addition made under Section 68 in respect of those parties has already been deleted, the disallowance of interest of ₹28,00,208/-, being purely consequential, also does not survive.

8.

The Revenue's appeals for Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019- 20 and 2020-21 raise identical grounds, on identical facts and circumstances, challenging the deletion of additions made under Section 68 in respect of unsecured loans and the consequential

Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd. 19 ITA Nos. 4475, 5753, 5739 & 5695/MUM/2026

disallowance of interest. Our findings and conclusions recorded hereinabove shall apply mutatis mutandis to the said appeals as well, and the same are accordingly dismissed.

9.

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/07/2026 Z.U., P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER,

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →