SUSHILA COKE AND MINERALS,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HAZARIBAGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 374/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sushila Coke & Minerals, I.T.O., C/o-Sri Sumit Sondhi, durga Apartment, Ward 2(2), Vs. 4th Floor, Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh. Hazaribagh-825301 (Jharkhand) PAN No. ABBFS 9152 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 09/07/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, the ld. CIT(A) in Appeal No. CIT(A), Hazaribagh/10139/2019-20 dated 02/07/2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandipan Khan, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 25 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the impugned assessment year is 2012-13. The assessee had taken a loan of ₹ 1.00 crore from one Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited between 13/09/2011 and 14/10/2011. It was the submission that the loan had been repaid to an extent of ₹ 66.00 lacs during the impugned assessment year itself between 21/02/2012 and 31/03/2012. The balance of ₹ 34.00 lacs had been repaid in the immediately subsequent assessment year between 07/09/2012 and 17/09/2012. It was the submission that the assessment proceedings had been initiated only on 26/03/2019 by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). It was the submission that the loans having also been repaid, the assessee is not in a position to produce any further evidence in so far as the assessee has no control over the lender. It was the submission that the assessment of immediately subsequent assessment year being A.Y. 2013-14 when the assessee had repaid ₹ 34.00 lacs has also not been reopened and stands accepted. It was the submission that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. reported in 290 Taxman 471 (Gujarat), the addition may be deleted. 5. In reply, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has categorically attempted to verify the said lender and the Assessing Officer had found that the address of the lender was not known and the lender had not responded to any of the notices issued. It was the submission that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order at page No. 4 shows that notice under Section 133(6) of the Act has been

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO issued to ICICI bank, Hazaribagh branch where the said Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited had been found to have its bank account. The bank has given information in regard to said transaction. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer recognizes that there are cash deposits in the bank account of Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited. The fact that the Assessing Officer had the details of the bank account of Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited itself goes against the fact that the said lender does not exist. If there is transaction of cash in the hands of Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited, admittedly those are the transactions for which Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited is answerable. The assessee cannot be brought to question for the transactions done in the bank account of Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited. Further, the fact remains that the assessee has received the said loans and before the assessment process has started in the assessee's case and the loans have also been repaid, thus clearly the facts of the assessee's case are squarely covered by the principles and facts laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. (supra). The assessee has also filed written submission which reads as follows: "1. That the main issue in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which was made by the assessing officer subsequent to the reopening U/s 147on basis of some information received from the Investigation Unit Kolkata. 2. That as per the documents on record it has been the assessee had received an unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from M/s Kohinoor Vyapaar Pvt Ltd during the year and that the same has been alleged to be an accommodation entry. 3. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the facts on record that though the assessee had received Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unsecured loan

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO during the year, the assessee had duly repaid back Rs. 66,00,000/- during the year itself and that the balance Rs. 34,00,000/-was returned back in the immediate subsequent year. We are attaching herewith the ledger account for the same at Page 04-05 along with the audited balance sheet & annexure of M/s Kohinoor Vyapaar Pvt Ltd as on March 2013 at Page 06-07 justifying the same. 4. That in support of our above contentions, we rely upon the following case laws:- a) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat)/[2023] 290 Taxman 471 (Gujarat)[05-07-2022] 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity and since the assessee was not beneficiary when the loan was repaid in the subsequent year, even the ingredients of creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction were well satisfied. 6. The Tribunal rightly recorded in para 29 of the judgment, "Once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into isolation after ignoring the debit entries despite the debit entries were carried out in the later years. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, were hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT-A 7. For the reasons recorded above, no question of law much less substantial questions arises in this appeal. It stands meritless and accordingly dismissed. b) Real Innerspring Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1130 (Delhi-Trib.)[27-03-2025] 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AO has initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and search proceedings in the case of Shri Verma. It is brought on record that these two companies were found to be controlled by the accommodation entry providers, Shri Verma and Shri Anil Agarwal. Merely because the assessee has taken the unsecured loan from the companies controlled by them, the addition was made rejecting the various supporting documents provided by the assessee relating to transactions. 11. In our considered view, the additions were made only on the basis of alleging that the loan taken by the assessee from the above said two companies are only accommodation entries and assessee's own money was routed through these companies with the help of

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO accommodation entry providers. On careful note, the accommodation entries are taken which will remain in the books of account and they will ultimately written off over the period of time. These loans were normally not repaid. In the given case, it is brought to our notice that the assessee has received the unsecured loan through the banking channel and repaid through the banking channel as under :- Name of the Amount of Date on Date of Date of lender Loan which loan interest repayment of taken payment loan. M/s Citzy 50,00,000 09.07.2015 30.12.2017 06.12.2017 Infraheights (Pg 38 of the (Pg 40 of the 30.12.2017 Pvt. Ltd. Paper Book) Paper Book) 9Pg 39 & 40 of the Paper Book) M/s CEA 50,00,000 18.03.2016 27.04.2016 17.03.2017 Consultants (Pg. 81 of 28.03.2017 18…03.2017 Pvt. Ltd. the Paper (Pg 81 of the 21.03.2017 Book) Paper Book) (Pg 83 & 84 of the Paper Book) 12. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has repaid the loan even before the assessment was reopened. When the assessee takes the loan and repaid along with the interest clearly shows that the transactions are genuine. By returning the loan, the assessee has only utilised the loan for the purpose of business and repaid the same. Merely because some operator has managed the affairs and all the transactions cannot be labelled as non-genuine. Every transaction has to be evaluated on its merit rather than on the basis of suspicion. Therefore, in this case. the assessee has submitted all the documents in support of the transaction before the AO and he has merely rejected the same on the basis of information available with him as the same on the basis of suspicion. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. Lastly we also rely upon the decision of coordinated bench of this tribunal in the case of Gopal Agarwal in ITA No. 34/Ran/2024 dated 11/06/2025 wherein on identical facts, the addition made has been deleted. The copy of the said order is attached herewith at Page 08-12. As such, relying upon the above facts and case laws cited, we submit that the addition made in hands of the assessee is fit to be deleted."

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO A perusal of the paper book as filed by the assessee also shows that the balance sheet of Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited has been placed at page No. 6 and 7 of the paper book which reads as follows:

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO

ITA 374/Ran/2024 Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs ITO In the note "G", long term loans and advances, the assessee is shown to be due to the Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited ₹ 34.00 lacs as on the year 31/03/2012 and NIL as on 31/03/2013. Thus, the balance sheet of Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited also clearly shows the transactions with the assessee. This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. (supra) and the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Gopal Agarwal Vs ITO in ITA No. 34/Ran/2024 dated 11/06/2025 and also in respect of the fact that Kohinoor Vyapar Private Limited has in its balance sheet shown the assessee as a debtor due for ₹ 34.00 lacs which admittedly been paid during the subsequent assessment year, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 09/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 09/07/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi