DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. GOLDENDREAMS BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.865/PUN/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 ITO, National e-Assessment Vs. Goldendreams Buildcon Centre, Delhi. Private Limited, D-5, API Compound, MIDC, Chikalthana- 431210. PAN : AACCG9388E Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Date of hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 115BBE of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2021 by AO of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments made by the company in F.Y. 2017-18. 2. The CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)

2 ITA No.865/PUN/2024 of the Act on 31.03.2021 by AO of Rs. 5,92,74,939/- on account of unsecure loans accepted by the company in F.Y. 2017-18.” 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction/builder/real estate and has furnished its return of income on 31.10.2018 by declaring income of Rs.Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has invested Rs.1,40,00,000/- during the year under consideration and has not furnished the details of sources of fund except by saying that the investment is made from own funds. The Assessing Officer also found that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs.5,92,74,939/- from various persons and the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors was not proved by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.03.2021 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) by determining income of the assessee at Rs.7,32,74,940/- as against the income of Rs.Nil returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- being investment from undisclosed

3 ITA No.865/PUN/2024 sources and further addition of Rs.5,92,74,939/- being unproved creditors u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee as well as considering the remand report forward by the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deleted both the additions made by the Assessing Officer and consequently allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “6 Decision in Appeal a) Since, the AO in remand report dated 22.02.2024, has not only commented to admit the additional evidences under rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 but, also i.r.o both the additions made in the assessment orderhas commented as under: i) Unexplained investment of Rs.1,40,00,000/- Considering the above factual position, even though after losses, company had own fund of Rs 12,72,57,783/-, to which investment of Rs 1,40,00,000/- is attributable. And on this basis the explanation was given that, the investment was out of own funds of the company. It is not the case that the company is having negative own fund or eroded capital, hence the same may please be accepted. ii) Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.5,92,74,939/- In view of assessee detailed submission and supporting documentary evidence, Prima Facie, the identification, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction in respect of unsecured loan at Rs 5,92,74,939/- stands explained. b) In the view of the above, the evidence submitted during appellate proceedings which have been remanded back to the AO, are admitted as Additional Evidences in the view of Rule 46A of the I.T Rule and the power vented with undersigned by section 250 of the Act and the contentions raised by the appellant through its Grounds of Appeal are held to be tenable and the additions made by the AO has become infructuous. Therefore, the additions made are liable to be deleted and the Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal is Allowed.”

4 ITA No.865/PUN/2024 5. It is the above order against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deleting the additions of Rs.140,00,000/- & also deleting the additions of Rs.5,92,74,939/- is not justified. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of Ld. AR that the assessee furnished additional evidences before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, which could not be furnished before the Assessing Officer, and requested Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to accept them under the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Act. These additional evidences were forwarded to the Assessing Officer by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and after considering these evidences the Assessing Officer forwarded a favourable remand report on the basis of which Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC accepted the contentions of the assessee and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 8. From perusal of case record, we find that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- regarding investment

5 ITA No.865/PUN/2024 in share capital on the ground that the assessee was continuously showing losses and therefore it was not possible for the assessee to invest in purchase of shares capital of other companies. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of the assessee that whole of Rs.1,40,00,000/- was not invested during the year under consideration, rather only an amount of Rs.29,15,000/- was invested during the relevant year and rest of the amount Rs.1,10,85,000/- was paid in prior years, however the company Pride Venture India Private Limited has allotted the shares in this year. The assessee also furnished various related documents to prove that the shares were allotted by Pride Venture India Private Limited and copy of bank account from where payments were made was also produced before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and all these documents were sent to the Assessing Officer for verification and his comments. Since the Assessing Officer gave favourable remand report it was inevitable for Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to accept the contentions of the assessee and accordingly the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- was deleted by him and accordingly, we do not find any error in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein he deleted the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/-. Accordingly ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

6 ITA No.865/PUN/2024 9. From perusal of case record, we further find that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.5,92,74,939/- regarding unsecured loan obtained from 4 parties since according to the Assessing Officer, the 3 ingredients i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was not proved. We also find that out of above 4 parties, party namely Frisk Techmedico LLP has advanced an amount of Rs.5,78,00,000/- to the assessee and party namely DV Exports Private Limited has advanced an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the assessee and party namely Ajanta Facilities Management & Infra LLP has advanced an amount of Rs.4,58,285/- to the assessee. In this regard, we find that detailed submission and supporting documentary/ evidences were filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and all these documents were sent to the Assessing Officer for verification and his comments. Since the Assessing Officer gave a favourable remand report, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC accepted the contentions of the assessee and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs.5,92,74,939/- made by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, we also find that the assessee has already furnished copy of ledger accounts of loan creditor in the books of the assessee, copy of income tax return of the loan creditor & copy of bank account of the assessee wherein amount was transferred / received from the loan

7 ITA No.865/PUN/2024 creditor & financial statements of the loan creditors were also produced. Since the Assessing Officer has already accepted all these supporting documents in remand proceedings, the creditworthiness, identity & genuineness of the transactions is proved therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein he deleted the addition of Rs.5,92,74,939/-. Accordingly, the ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is also dismissed. 10. In result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 18th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.19 15:59:17 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.