INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -10(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. GAMUT COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7252/Del/2025 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs. Gamut Commercials Pvt.Ltd. Ward – 10(1) 306, 3rd Floor, RG Mall Room No.G11A, Ground Floor Sector – 09, Rohini Central Revenue Building New Delhi IP Estate, New Delhi PAN No. AAACG 9995 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, C.A. Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 22.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 06.07.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 29.09.2025 arising from the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed by the NFAC, Delhi under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14.

Page 1 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disregarding the detailed findings and tangible evidences brought on record by the Assessing Officer based on the Investigation Wing's report, which categorically identified the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries aggregating to Rs.5,61,00,000/- from shell entities controlled by Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain group, liable to be taxed as deemed income under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,61,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors, and genuineness of the impugned transactions. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere filing of confirmation letters, PAN, income tax returns, and bank statements does not, by itself, prove the genuineness of the transactions or the creditworthiness of the creditors, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC), and that the Ld. CIT(A), having powers coterminous with those of the Assessing Officer, ought to have caused or directed further enquiries under section 250(4) of the Act instead of merely accepting the assessee’s submissions. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the findings of the Assessing Officer were "vague", ignoring that the Assessing Officer had relied upon specific, verifiable information from the Investigation Wing and had recorded detailed reasons based on credible material forming the basis of reopening under section 147 of the Act, and further failed to exercise his coterminous powers to cause or direct additional verification if he was not satisfied with the extent of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the non-furnishing of bifurcation of information received from the Investigation Wing as a fatal defect, without appreciating that such a procedural lapse, if any, was curable in nature and could have been appropriately addressed by calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, which was not done. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the available records clearly established that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from entities controlled by Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, which were identified as shell companies providing accommodation entries, thereby justifying the addition made under section 68 of the Act. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring binding judicial precedents including CIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court), PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court), and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (Supreme Court), wherein it has been held that in cases involving accommodation entries and unexplained credits, the onus lies squarely upon the assessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Page 2 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 8. The appellant craves leave to, add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of taking and giving loans and is registered NBFC. The assessee had filed return of income for A.Y 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.23,48,480/- on 30.09.2013. The case was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of information received from Investigation wing made available to the AO according to which the assessee had received accommodation entries of Rs.5,61,00,000/- in the form of unsecured loans/deposits from the entities controlled by Shri. Anand Kumar Jain and Shri. Naresh Kumar Jain group of cases, for which the assessee had paid cash. Therefore, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021. The objection raised by the assessee against issue of notice u/s 148 was disposed off by the AO on 03.03.2022 by passing speaking order. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the AO, after considering the replies filed, observed that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the unsecured loan/deposit transaction of Rs.5,61,00,000/- with supporting evidences. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.5,61,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

Page 3 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the said addition. 5. The ld DR placed a detailed submission as below: “4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable both on facts and in law for the following reasons: 4.1 The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not based on mere suspicion or general information, but on specific, credible and tangible material received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, pursuant to search and seizure operations conducted in the case of Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain. The assessee was specifically identified as a beneficiary of accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 5,61,00,000/-, routed through entities controlled and operated by the said entry operators. The Assessing Officer, after due application of mind, correlated the information with the return of income, financial statements and bank transactions of the assessee, thereby establishing a direct nexus between the assessee and the accommodation entry network. 4.2 It is further submitted that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act. While the assessee furnished documentary evidences such as confirmations, ITRs and bank statements, the same were found to be merely self-serving documents, which did not establish the real creditworthiness of the lenders or the genuineness of the transactions. The assessment findings clearly bring out that the lender entities had meagre financials, negligible business activities, and lacked independent sources of funds, and were part of a structured layering mechanism. The bank account analysis revealed rotation and layering of funds through multiple shell entities immediately prior to advancing funds to the assessee, which is a typical hallmark of accommodation entry operations. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the documentary evidences at face value without appreciating the surrounding circumstances, human probabilities and the findings of the Investigation Wing, which clearly demonstrated that the transactions lacked commercial substance. It is well settled that in cases involving accommodation entries, the test is not merely the existence of documents, but the credibility and genuineness of the underlying transaction, which the assessee failed to establish. 4.4 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to exercise the powers vested under section 250(4) of the Act to call for a remand report or to direct further inquiry, despite the fact that the assessment order was based on detailed investigation inputs and analysis. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that Page 4 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. the Assessing Officer's findings were vague is factually incorrect, as the assessment order clearly records the source of information, analysis of financials, bank trail, and the role of entry operators. 4.5 It is also pertinent to submit that the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer are in consonance with settled judicial principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, including in the cases of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that in cases involving accommodation entries, the assessee is required to establish not only the identity but also the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction through cogent and credible evidence, and mere production of documents is not sufficient. 4.6 In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition by disregarding material evidence on record and by placing undue reliance on superficial documentary compliance, without appreciating the substantive deficiencies and the incriminating investigation findings brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 5. of In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the assessment order facts. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by placing undue reliance on documentary evidences without examining the underlying realities of the transactions. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore erroneous and unsustainable in law, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be restored. 6. Per contra, the ld AR of the assessee placed a written submissions, after giving the facts of the case, as follows: (a) The reassessment proceedings have been initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing alleging that the Appellant Company had received accommodation entries through certain alleged entry operators. The action is primarily founded on third-party report without any independent verification or application of mind by the Assessing Officer. (b) The Assessing Officer has merely reproduced information received from the Investigation Wing and has drawn a conclusion of escapement of income based on such borrowed material. Page 5 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (c) The conclusion drawn suffers from inconsistencies since with regard to the figures of Rs. 5,61,00,000/- the following details were not provided by the Ld. Assessing Officer while initiating the proceedings u/s 147:- i)No break-up of the amount was given in the satisfaction note; ii)The Name of the party from whom the amount was received is not mentioned; iii) Amount received from the specific party; iv)Date of receipt of the amount; (v) Name of the bank from where the amount was received; or vi) any other details of amount were not provided d) This reflects no independent application of mind and only on the basis of information received from the investigation wing the notice was issued. There is no indication of any independent enquiry or tangible material having been examined to establish a live nexus between the information received and the alleged escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant Company. The formation of belief appears to be mechanical and based purely on suspicion, which is not permissible under law. (e) It is further an undisputed fact that the original assessment in the present case had already been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, wherein all relevant details, including unsecured loans and financial statements, were duly examined by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant Company had made full and true disclosure of all primary facts necessary for assessment. (f) The reopening is based on generalized allegations that certain persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries. However, no specific material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the transaction undertaken by

Page 6 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. the Appellant Company is an accommodation entry, except a general reference to an investigation report. Such vague and general information, without any direct linkage to the Appellant Company, cannot constitute a valid "reason to believe" as contemplated under Section 147 of the Act. (g) The AO relied solely on the report of the Investigation Wing but did not give any direct evidences of receipt of accommodation entry by the Appellant Company, statements of the concerned parties etc. The AO in para 20 & 21 of the assessment order has made an addition of Rs.5,61,00,000/- on the mere assumption that the same is included in the unsecured loans of Rs. 38,45,75,000/-. (h) Further the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer has assumed that the accommodation entries of Rs. 5,61,00,000/- might be included in unsecured loans of Rs. 38,45,75,000/- which the basis of making the addition is vague. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found force in the submission made by the appellant by relying on various decisions including the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. (Page no. 44 of the CIT Order dated 29.09.2025) (i) While passing the order the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his appellate order has relied upon the following case laws while holding the notice issued u/s 148 to be bad in law :- i)Sabh Infrastructure vs ACIT [398 ITR 198 (Del)]; (i) (ii) Pr CIT v RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd [(2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del)] (iii) Pr CIT v G & G Pharma India Ltd [384 ITR 147 (Delh)] (iv) CIT vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 108/2015(Del)]; (v) Signature Hotels P. Ltd v ITO [(2011) 338 ITR 0051 (Del)]; (vi) CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd [325 ITR 285(Del)]; (vii) Sarthak Securities Co P Ltd vs ITO [329 ITR 110 (Del)]; (viii) CIT v Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd [ITA No. 266/2011 (Del)]; (ix) CIT v Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co Ltd [378 ITR 351(Del)];

Page 7 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (x) Hindustan Lever Ltd [(2004) 137 Taxman 479(Bom)] (xi) CIT v Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81(SC)] (j) Further, the Assessing Officer has failed to supply the underlying investigation material, statements, or relied-upon documents to the Appellant Company, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 7. We have heard the rival submission and have carefully perused the materials on record. We find that the Revenue has argued that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act. We find that the assessee furnished documentary evidences such as confirmations, ITRs and bank statements, yet without pointing out the deficiencies in those documents/evidence, the AO considered them as merely self-serving documents. The Revenue relies on the surrounding circumstances, human probabilities and the findings of the Investigation Wing, to show that the transactions lacked commercial substance. We find that the CIT(A) had called for the remand report and subsequently found the Assessing Officer's findings as vague and factually incorrect. 8. On the other hand, the assessee argued on the validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 as being without any independent verification. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed this ground and the assessee has not filed any appeal or cross objection to contest the validity of reopening, this argument is to be rejected.

Page 8 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 9. In such facts and circumstances of the case, in the instant year we find the decision of the CIT(A), as under: “I have considered the facts of the case, submissions filed and arguments made during VC carefully. I find that bifurcation of alleged accommodation entries of Rs.5,61,00,000/- were not provided to the appellant during re-opening proceedings or during assessment proceedings in spite of number of requests made by the appellant. Further I find that the appellant had provided the confirmation letters and copies of ITR and bank statement for unsecured loans of Rs.38,45,75,000/- to the AO but the AO has not made any further verification with said third parties to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the appellant. Further I find that the AO has assumed that the accommodation entries of Rs.5,61,00,000/- might be included in unsecured loans of Rs.38,45,75,000/-. Thus, I find that the basis of making the addition of Rs.5,61,00,000/- is very vague and I find force in the submission made by the appellant by relying on various decisions including the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted and the grounds raised by the appellant are allowed.” 10. We find that the AO has accepted the Investigation report as sacrosanct in the course of assessment proceedings. As noted by the CIT(A), the AO did not provide the bifurcation of the accommodation entries; did not point out deficiencies in the evidences/documents submitted by the assessee; and there was no independent verification of the third parties by the AO to discredit the explanation of the assessee. In view of such factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the decision of the CIT(A) do not call for any interference. The grounds are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 7252/Del/2025 is dismissed. Page 9 of 11

ITA No.7252/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2013-14 ITO vs. Gamut Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 06.07.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 10 of 11