ARANUS REALTY LLP,NAVI MUMABI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1616/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Aranus Realty LLP Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 23, Sector 40, Vashi, Vs. Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Navi Mumbai (PAN : ABGFA3000R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for: Assessee : Shri Kirit Purohit, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Addl./JCIT (A), Bhubaneswar, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1082136135(1), dated 19.01.2026, passed against the penalty order issued by ITO, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai, u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.04.2024, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

1] The learned AO erred on facts, in law in making addition of Rs 5500000 u/s 68 - on account of Loan Received from loan creditors and Rs 504657 u/s 69A for interest on this loan.

2 ITA No. 1616/Mum/2026 Aranus Realty LLP AY 2019-20 2] The Learned AO erred on facts, in law to reopen assessment u/s 148 without passing an order u/s 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Though the AO has issued notices u/s 148A (b). 3 ] The Learned AO erred on facts, in law in passing assessment order u/s 147 without the prior approval of The additional Commissioner or additional Directors or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director as required u/s 148B of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4] The Learned AO has not given opportunity to cross examine the deponent of the statement and also not provided copy of independent enquiry conducted by the AO and evidences collected. 5] The Learned AO has concluded his finding on the basic of statement recorded of the loan creditors, however no where in this statement name of the assesse has been mentioned as beneficiary of the accommodation entry and the AO has not provided any evidences that the assesse has paid cash and received bogus loans in its books of accounts. 6) The assesee has discharged its liability by providing documentary evidences i.e Bank statement showing receipt of loan, loan confirmation duly signed by loan creditors copy of Income Tax returns of the loan creditors and also identity of the loan creditors only doubt raised is above genuineness of the transaction, however the loans creditors has never denied the transaction of loan paid and received back from the assesee along with interest and applicable TDS. 7) The learned AO has entirely relied on general statement of the loan creditors that he has given accommodation entries which statements was subsequently retracted by the deponent of the statement therefore this conclusion drawn by the AO is erroneous. 8) Since the assesse has filed return of income and provided all details and explanations asked for by the AO therefore the conclusion drawn by the AO is factually incorrect and assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act without prior permission of the additional Commissioner or additional Directors or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director as required u/s 148B of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law and required to be quashed. 9) The learned JCIT appeal has erred on facts, in law in rejecting appeal filed against rectification order passed u/s 154 on the ground that grounds of appeal are not in conformity with grounds of appeal of section 154 . 10) Since the rectification order passed u/s 154 is merged with original order the Assesee has taken grounds of appeal same as that of grounds raised against the original order considering that this rectified order being final order the grounds are similar to that of original order except one loan creditor addition of Rs 20 Lakh which was missed by the AO at the time of framing original assessment order .

3 ITA No. 1616/Mum/2026 Aranus Realty LLP AY 2019-20 3. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted for withdrawing the appeal. His statement was taken on record at the Bar in this regard.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11 May, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai