9M INDIA LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 dated 28.03.2026 for the assessment year 2022-23 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

3 9M India Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.376/RPR/2026

2.1 The Ld. Counsel further contended that the said lender had been showing her return of income u/s. 44ADA of the Act which is 50% of the gross profit and she was not required to maintain regular books of account. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the lender had disclosed receipt of Rs.11,90,700/- to the Department in A.Y.2022-23, annexed at Page 43 of the paper book. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that it is not the first solitary transaction of cash deposits in the account of the said chartered accountant, in fact, she had been depositing money in her bank account from professional fees in cash amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- in this year on various dates. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Raipur in the case of Umiya Board and Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.), ITA No.790/RPR/2025, dated 19.02.2026.

4 9M India Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.376/RPR/2026

lender. Rather, there was evidence which shows that cash were deposited in the bank account of the lender earned through profession. In fact, the total amount deposited during the year is Rs.4,80,000/-. Therefore, out of the said amount, the lender has provided loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the assessee. In such scenario, addition made u/s. 68 of the Act is misplaced and vitiated. I find that on the similar facts and circumstances, the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Umiya Board and Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.), ITA No.790/RPR/2025, dated 19.02.2026 has held and observed as follows: “5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC while upholding the findings of the A.O did not give any specific reason vide one para order and summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The fact of the matter is that the assessee company is maintaining regular books of account, quantity registers for production and sales, bills and vouchers and other relevant documents. The books of accounts were duly audited as per Section 44AB of the Act. There are no questions raised by the Department regarding validity of these documents which were produced before the A.O by the assessee during the assessment stage itself. The A.O had also issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and all the shareholders who had invested in the assessee company, they have produced bank statement for the given period and filed individual return of income for the relevant year and cash book. The only ground of the A.O for making addition was that there was this particular pattern of cash deposits in the individual account of shareholders just before making payment to the assessee company. That when the assessee had provided all the relevant documents and evidences, that when books of account were duly audited as per Section 44AB of the Act, when basis of the share transaction is not questioned by the Department, there cannot be any addition u/s. 68 of the Act only because of the fact that according to the A.O since cash was deposited in the individual account of the shareholders just prior to the date of payment to the assessee company,

5 9M India Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.376/RPR/2026

cannot make a genuine transaction as non-genuine in absence of any corroborative evidences. 7. That further each of the shareholders in response to the 1st notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act had furnished their bank statement for the relevant period and they had filed individual return of income, cash book and that all these documents have been furnished by the assessee, still the A.O for reasons known to him only is not satisfied regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and just because, the shareholders had not given response to the second notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act, the A.O had made the additions. 8. The identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the present case are well being established since on one hand, all the documents and evidences pertaining to the assessee had been duly furnished before the A.O and at the same time, all the shareholders have given their bank statements, ITR as well as cash book. The A.O had not negated or disbelieved these documents which have been furnished before him. The A.O had also not conducted any inquiry and has not brought on record any findings on facts as to why he had made the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC when mandated to pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, the said authority chooses to pass a summary and cryptic order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without any independent application of mind or reasoning. There is no logical reasons in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for sustaining the said addition in the hands of the assessee. It would be relevant to extract the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which reads as follows: “I have gone through the facts of the case and the submissions of the Appellant. It is the onus of the Appellant to prove the Identity, Genuineness and Creditworthiness of the persons providing the credits. The Appellant has stated that the shares were subscribed by 22 persons introducing the share capital of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has specifically given a fact finding that all the amounts were deposited in cash in the bank accounts of the 22 persons two or three days before the subscription of shares. The Appellant has not provided any proof or explanation as how the cash was uniformly deposited in the bank accounts of the 22 persons. This leads to the lack of Genuineness and Creditworthiness of those persons. As the Appellant is

6 9M India Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.376/RPR/2026

unable to prove the Genuineness and Creditworthiness, there is no reason to interfere in the Order of Assessment. Accordingly, the Appeals stand dismissed. 9. The statute mandates that the first appellate authority shall conduct independent inquiry before coming to a particular conclusion. However, as discernable from the foregoing para, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee in a perverse and arbitrary manner without independent application of mind vis-à-vis the facts of the case of the assessee. There is no analytical findings provided in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC regarding all the evidences and documents furnished by the assessee as well as by the shareholders. That without negating evidences placed on record by the assessee, the addition made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as quasi-judicial authority is not in accordance with the Act. That if the additions were to be made u/s. 68 of the Act, it was mandatory for the Revenue authority to specifically spell out regarding deficiency for establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. But in this case, there is no discussion at all by the Revenue authority regarding evidences placed on record by the assessee as well as shareholders and without any examination and inquiry, the additions had been made, which therefore, obtain the character being perverse, arbitrary and bad in law, hence liable to be deleted. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the additions made u/s. 68 of the Act in the case of the assessee is misplaced and hence, the A.O is directed to delete the same while providing appeal effect of this order. 10. As per the aforesaid terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

7 9M India Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.376/RPR/2026

the Act in the case of the assessee is misplaced and hence, the A.O is directed to delete the same while providing appeal effect of this order.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 9th July, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. Samiran Bera, आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sr. PS, ITAT, // True Copy // Raipur Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.07.09 16:22:45 +05'30'