SHANTI GOLD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the

order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre

(NFAC), Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2018-19, which in turn

arises from assessment order u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”)

dated 31.05.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short,

“the Ld. AO”). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another - 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or JAO) in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the issue of notice under section 148 is without jurisdiction and hence, the consequent assessment order needs to be quashed. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned notice under section 148 has been issued by JAO which ought to have been issued in the faceless manner per the provisions of section 151A and therefore, the said notice is bad in law and hence, the consequent assessment order needs to be quashed. 2. The specified authority under section 151 erred in not granting an appropriate approval as required under section 151 of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the JAO ought to have obtained an appropriate approval in accordance with section 151 of the Act, and having not so obtained, the notice issued under section 148 is bad in law and hence, the consequent assessment order needs to be quashed. Without prejudice to the above, the appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the approval granted by the authority under section 151 2

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited of the Act is mechanical and without application of mind, and therefore, the notice issued under section 148 by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and hence, the consequent assessment order needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Officer at the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition of Rs 1,50,00,000 under section 68 of the Act in respect of a loan obtained from Aneri Fincap Limited, primarily on the ground that the appellants did not pay interest on the said loan. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have made the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety, and hence, the impugned addition of Rs 1,50,00,000 is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have made the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not brought any evidence on record to refute the details and documents furnished by the appellants to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction and hence, the impugned addition of Rs 1,50,00,000 is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have made the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not brought any evidence on record to prove that cash has emanated from the coffers of the appellants and hence, the impugned addition of Rs 1,50,00,000 is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter and/ or amend the afore stated grounds of appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed its

original return of income for assessment year 2018-19 on 21st September, 2018,

declaring total income at Rs. 13,78,09,010/-. Subsequently, an intimation u/s

143(1)(a) of the Act was passed by the CPC determining the income of assessee

at Rs. 14,02,16,960/-. Later on, the case has been reopened for assessment u/s

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after taking approval of competent authority.

The issue for which the reopening provisions are involved, was that the Ld. AO

has received the information regarding a search action in the case of M/s.

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited Oneworld Group Entities, carried out on 06.11.2019. During the search

proceedings based on the evidence gathered and statements recorded, the

Oneworld Group entities are found to be involved in providing of bogus

accommodation entries. It is further revealed during the search that M/s

Oneworld Group entity has given a bogus loan to M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt.

Ltd.(AFPL). Statement of Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Director of ‘AFPL’ are are recorded

u/s 131 of Act, he admitted that all the entities managed and controlled by him

were paper entities, which are used to provide bogus bills/ accommodation

entities to several beneficiaries. Further, the company, ‘AFPL’ had provided a

bogus loan amounting to Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the assessee herein also, during

the financial year 2017-18. Accordingly, the case of assessee was reopened and

notice u/s 148 was issued. In due course of time, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and

142(1) were issued to the assessee. During course of assessment, notices u/s

133(6) of the Act were issued to Mr. Rajesh Mehta and M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt.

Ltd. on 18.04.2023. The notice issued to Mr. Rajesh Mehta remains unanswered.

However, M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. furnished had replied on 29.04.2023. It was

submitted by the alleged lender that it is a NBFC and had provided loan of Rs.

1,50,00,000/- to the assessee during the year under consideration. M/s. Aneri

also provided copy of ledger account and copy of bank account in support of its

claim. However, the lender company had not responded to the question asked

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited by the AO in connection with Mr. Rajesh Mehta and his statements. The Ld. AO

also observed that the assessee did not furnish satisfactory reply in response to

show cause notice dated 15.05.2023 and contended for adjournment in

response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 26.04.2023. The AO noted that

the contention of assessee that they have sought for an adjournment could not

be verified from the system. Thus, it is concluded that the assessee has nothing

more to say on the issue. Accordingly, the assessment is proposed to be finalized

as per the variation proposed in show cause notice. In conclusion, the loan taken

for Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. (AFPL) is proposed to be

treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and has been added to the income

of assessee.

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the contention

of the assessee with the following observations:

“6.2.1 In ground no. 08, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 58 of the Act.

The appellant in its written submission furnished at the time of appellate proceedings, has stated that it had established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness at the time of assessment proceeding. It further stated that the most compelling evidence of the genuineness of the loan is its complete lifecycle. It had received the loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- through proper banking channels, serviced the loan by making regular interest payments, and finally repaid

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited the entire principal amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on 30-09-2020 through banking channels,

which is clearly reflected in the bank statements. The appellant has contended that M/s Aneri

Fincap Limited was a registered NBFC and a listed company.

6.2.2 The written submission of the appellant has been perused and found not to be tenable.

The appellant has contended that it had serviced the loan by making regular interest payments,

and finally repaid the entire principal amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on 30-09-2020.

On perusal of loan confirmation submitted by the appellant during the course of

appellate proceeding, it is seen that the appellant had received unsecured loan of Rs.

1,50,00,000/- from Mis. Aneri Fincap Ltd. in January, 2018 during F.Y. 2017-18 and it has repaid

exactly the same amount Le. Rs 1,50,00,000/- to Mis. Aneri Fincap Ltd. in August & September,

2020 during FY 2020-21. It is clear that the appellant had availed such loan for a period of

almost 32 months and repaid exactly the same amount of loan without paying a penny of

interest. The appellant has contended that M/s Aneri Fincap Limited was a registered NBFC.

However, a legitimate NBFC would not extend an unsecured loan without charging

interest for such a long period. Unsecured loans are inherently riskier for a lender because they

are not backed by any collateral. For this reason, NBFCs typically charge higher interest rates

on them and penalize late payments. Not paying interest for about 32 months is not

commercially realistic and strongly suggests the transaction was a facade. The factors that lead

to deem the loan bogus include:

o Commercial unviability: The absence of interest on a commercial loan for

about 32 months defies standard business practice. Lending money is a

business of a legitimate NBFC and it expects a return (interest) on its funds. o Lack of follow-up: Legitimate NBFCs have strict procedures for recovering

overdue payments, which include imposing late fees, reporting defaults to

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited credit bureaus, and even initiating legal action for non-payment. The NBFC's

failure to take any action for about two & half years undermines the

genuineness of the transaction. o Repayment timing: A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried

out in the case of Oneworld group of cases on 06.11.2019. During the course

of the afore-mentioned search proceedings, statement of Shri Rajesh G. Mehta

was recorded on oath wherein he had admitted that he was only providing

bogus sales and purchase bills to various entities, and there was no actual

supply of goods. During the course of recording of his statement on oath, Shri

Rajesh G. Mehta also provided the details of the entities controlled and

managed by him, and the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. was one of the

entities controlled and managed by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta. The appellant repaid

the unsecured loan after the transaction was under suspicion as a result of such

search & seizure procedure. Such repayment of loan was nothing but an

attempt to cover up the original bogus transaction.

Had the unsecured loan received by the appellant from a legitimate NBFC was genuine,

it would have debited interest as expenses in its profit & loss account each year and deducted

TDS on such interest. However, in the instant case, the appellant had neither debited any

interest expense in its profit & loss account nor deducted TDS on any interest payment. This

shows that the appellant was never intended to repay the loan. However, after the search &

seizure operation, it had no other option to repay the loan to cover up the original bogus

transaction. Thus, the Complete Loan Lifecycle contended to be established by the appellant is

only aftermath of the search & seizure operation conduced on in the case of Oneworld group

of cases on 06.11.2019 and post search investigation made after the search.

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited The appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in favour of its

contention. However, the fact of those case and the ratio laid down in the decision made in

above judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant doesn't apply in peculiar case of

the appellant.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Kayathwal Estate (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 317 (SC) has held that if an assessee has repaid the unsecured

loan with interest after deducting TDS thereon, then such unsecured loan shall not be treated

as bogus.

However, in the instant case, the appellant has repaid the loan without paying any

interest.

6.2.3 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the addition of Rs.

1,50,00,000/- made in the assessment order by the AO u/s. 68 of Act. Accordingly, the said

addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made by the AO is hereby upheld and ground of appeal filed by

the appellant is dismissed.”

which is under consideration in the present matter.

Ld. AR’), submitted that the issue was decided by Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee

primarily on the ground that the appellant did not pay interest on the said loan.

The appellant contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the assessing officer ought not to have made the impugned addition in as

much as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited hence the impugned addition of Rs. 1.50 Crore is bad in law and needs to be

deleted. Ld. AR further contended that the assessing officer was not correct in

making the addition as he has not provided any evidence on record to refute the

details and documents furnished by the appellant to prove the identity and

creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transactions, therefore,

the impugned addition is bad in law, liable to be deleted. It is also contended

that the Ld. AO ought not to have made the impugned addition as he has not

proved any evidence on record to that in cash had remitted from the coffers of

the appellant and hence the impugned addition cannot be sustained. The Ld. AR

placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs.

Ramesh Kumar Jain in ITA No. 192/Mum/2025 for the assessment year 2019-20

vide order dated 24.07.2025, wherein the identical issue has been decided by

the tribunal in favour of the assessee. In that case the assesse has received an

unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- from M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd.

(the alleged lender in consideration herein), with whom the assessee herein had

also transacted and the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai had dismissed the appeal of

revenue. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of ITO Vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain

in ITA No. 4664/Mum/2025 vide order dated 31.10.2025, wherein the issue of

unsecured loan taken from same company, Ms. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. has been

treated as genuine and the revenue’s appeal was dismissed. Reliance was also

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited placed on the decision in ITA No. 32/Viz/2025 in case of ACIT Vs. G. N. Cables

and Switches Pvt. Ltd. under identical facts and circumstances having an

addition u/s 69C, which has been deleted treating the company M/s. Aneri

Fincap Pvt. Ltd. and transaction with it, as genuine.

the Ld. AO cannot sustain in view of the aforesaid decisions, wherein the

transactions with M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. are treated as genuine under the

identical facts and circumstances, as that of in the case of assessee.

10 from the statement of Mr. Rajesh Mehta, it is clearly emanating that all the

company’s member of One Word Group, including M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd.

are paper companies, used by several entities to generate bogus sales and bogus

purchase. The group gets a commission in the range of 54 paisa per Rs. 100/- per

transaction for letting other persons to use its companies. It was a submission

that in present case no interest was paid on the corporate transaction, which is

rightly doubted by the Ld. CIT(A) and decide the issue against the assessee. The

assessee’s contention that the loan was repaid cannot change the nature of

transaction as the initiation of it was with a paper company under a bogus

transaction. Further, the repayment was made after search, which was a post-

facto arrangement by the assessee, so as to avoid the legal consequences. The

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited Ld. DR further argued that as per CITs observations no genuine NBFC will indulge

in such type of transactions.

International Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 5320/Mum/2025 for the

assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 12.03.2026, wherein at para 5.1 the

tribunal has observed that the records reveal that Mr. Rajesh Mehta

categorically admitted controlling various paper entities including M/s. Aneri

Fincap Pvt. Ltd. and stated that all these entities existed only for providing

accommodation entries without carrying out any changing businesses. Once it is

admitted by the controlling person that the company in question was merely an

accommodation entry provider with no real business activity, the character of

the entity stands seriously impaired. The absence of a specific reference to the

assessee does not exonerate the transaction and cannot bring M/s. Aneri Fincap

Pvt. Ltd. out of the ambit of entry providers. Accordingly, the ground of appeal

of the assessee was dismissed treating M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. as a sale

company and the transaction of unsecured loan as in-genuine transaction.

remains unanswered, shows that the company with which the assessee has

transactions is bogus and the loan taken is rightly added back to the income of

assessee u/s 68 of the Act.

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited 10. In rebuttal, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that not charging of interest

cannot be the sole reason for making a genuine transaction ingenuine. The

statements are in terms of Oneworld Group and the tribunal in the case/

decisions refer to supra has already approved the creditworthiness of the

assessee company. The lender company has responded to 133(6), so non-

responsiveness of Mr. Rajesh Mehta towards the notice u/s 133(6) cannot be the

reason for addition in the case of assessee, as the assessee has no control over

the affairs of Mr. Rajesh Mehta.

Ltd. (supra), it is submitted by the Ld. AR that its facts are distinguishable than

that of the case of assessee, the Hon’ble Tribunal has observed that the assessee

has not made any efforts to produce said party for verification of the assessing

officer, nor brought substantive material, demonstrating its financial capacity

independent of entry operations, in order to discharge burden of proof.

However, in present case M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. have furnished necessary

documents in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and, therefore, all the

relevant and primary document are there before the assessing officer.

Accordingly, the reliance of department on Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

CIT (supra) cannot help or rescue the contentions of the revenue. Further, since

in three other cases decide by the tribunal in its decisions had precisely given the

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited finding in favour of assessee, wherein the loan from M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd.

are considered as genuine in absence of any adverse evidence or material on

record against the assessee. Further, since the assessee had repaid the loan as

apparent from the bank statement of the assessee and confirmation by M/s.

Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. which is placed at page no. 55 of the assessee’s paper book.

Accordingly, the loans were taken on 6th to 10th January, 2018 in installments and

were repaid on 11th August to 14th September, 2020, that adds to the support of

the contention of assessee that the loan was genuine and the same does not

intended to be used by the assessee as an accommodation entry. Ld. AR placed

his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT Vs.

Yogendra Gupta 023 152 taxmann.com 661 Gujarat 7th March, 2023, Hon’ble

Court has held that where amount received as loan by assessee from B. Ltd. was

through regular bank and assessee had proved identity of creditor and

genuineness of transaction by filling confirmation from creditor and assessee

had furnished copy of audited account finalized profit and loss account along

with copy of ledger of B. Ltd., revenue does not justify in proceeding against

assessee on ground that loan taken from said B. Ltd. was unexplained credit and

that lender was also present.

available on record and the case was relied upon by both the parties. Admittedly

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited in present case, the assessee company had received a loan amount of Rs.

1,50,00,000/- from M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. which is a group company of

Oneworld Group, which was subjected to a search and seizure action, wherein

the statement of Mr. Rajesh Mehta, the key person was recorded and it was

admitted by him that the companies under the flagship of Oneworld Group

including M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. are involved in transaction of bogus sales

and purchases. The genesis of assessment in the assessee’s case u/s 147 was the

information received from investigation wing regarding the statements recorded

in the aforesaid search in Oneworld Group. It is found that the assessee had also

received a loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. in the month

of January 2018, although the same was repaid in the month of August and

September 2020. The revenue was of the view that once an in-genuine

transaction is entered and transacted with, the nature of same cannot be

changed only because of repayment of the same. We find principally agree with

such argument of the revenue, however, it has to be seen under totality of facts

and circumstances. The assessee placed reliance on various decisions of the

jurisdictional tribunal, which are placed before us vide a letter dated 17th April,

2026, against which no rebuttal was furnished by the revenue. The case is relied

upon by the assessee and the observations of tribunal therein are extracted as

earlier:

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited ACIT Vs. Ramesh Kumar Jain in ITA No. 192/Mum/2025 for the a.

assessment year 2019-20 vide order dated 24.07.2025

“14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The

transaction under consideration relates to unsecured loan transaction amounting to Rs 80 lacs

entered into by the assessee with M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd during the financial year 2018-19

relevant to impugned assessment year 2019-20. During the course of assessment proceedings,

it is noted that the assessee company has obtained and submitted the documentation to

corroborate the said transaction by way of the audited financial statements of the lender

company incorporating and reflecting the subject loan transaction, the bank statements of the

lender company demonstrating sufficient bank balance at the time of advancing the funds, PAN

of the lender company and copy of tax return showing returned income of Rs 79,20,620/-,

confirmation from the lender company confirming the subject transaction, status of the lender

company as an active (on MCA website) and registered NBFC engaged in the business of finance

and investments having reported turnover of Rs.24,33,52,602/-, net profit of Rs.68,70,374/-

and net worth of Rs.5,58,48,237/- for the year under consideration besides the fact that the

transaction has been entered into through the banking channel, tds liability has been

discharged on the interest accrued/paid on the loan amount and the fact that the loan has

been subsequently repaid during the financial year 2000-21 relevant to assessment year 2021-

by the assessee and therefore, the onus cannot be shifted back on the assessee. All the AO has

done is that he has issued a notice u/s 133(6) to the lender company and even though the same

was responded to by the lender company as evident from record placed before us and available

to the AO before passing of the assessment order but not considered by the AO. Secondly, the

AO has deputed his inspector to visit the premises of the lender company wherein he was

informed that the lender company has since shifted to another premises and the same

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited therefore is not a basis to hold the said company as a non-existent paper company except that

the lender company address couldn't be verified from last known address. There is nothing on

record in terms of any action taken by the AO in terms of reaching out to the AO of the lender

company whose PAN and tax return records were on record. We therefore find that the

assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus cast on him in terms of identity, creditworthiness

and genuineness of the loan transaction and no adverse view can be taken in this regard. The

Ld.CIT(A) has rightly considered the documentation so submitted and the addition so made by

the AO has rightly been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). Further, we find that the Coordinate Bench in

assessee's group company case (supra) has taken a similar view which also supports the case

of the assessee. In light of the same, we do not see any justifiable basis to interfere with the

order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby sustained and the ground of appeal so taken by

the Revenue is dismissed.

ITO Vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain in ITA No. 4664/Mum/2025 vide order b.

dated 31.10.2025

case and determination made by the Authorities below and rival claims raised by the parties.

This Court observe from the orders passed by the authorities below that the Assessing Officer

while making the addition under consideration, has also mentioned the facts that M/s. M/s.

Aneri Fincap Limited is being managed by Shri. Rajesh G Mehta, who was arrested by the GST

Department for fraudulent activities and Directors of M/s. Aneri Fincap Limited, despite of

issuing summons failed to appear for examination, thus said company is a paper company and

not doing any business. Further the assessee has not paid any interest on the loan amount,

which indicates the transaction, as a bogus transaction.

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited 6.1 Whereas, the Ld. Commissioner by considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the

case specific to the effect that despite of issuing direction to Shri. Rajesh G Mehta to attend the

video conference, in order to cross examination by the assessee, Shri. Rajesh G Mehta failed to

attend video conference. Further M/s. Aneri Fincap Limited is an NBFC having regular income

of Rs. 40-80 lac and the assessee by furnishing requisite details including the bank statements,

confirmation from M/s. Aneri Fincap Limited and copies of income of the lender, has duly

established the genuineness of the transaction and identity and creditworthiness of the lender

and thus on the aforesaid fact, the Id. Commissioner allowed the appeal of the assessee and

deleted the addition under consideration.

6.2 As the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in deleting the addition under consideration, is not

only based on peculiar facts and circumstances but in fact the same is based on the relevant

documents and on the peculiar facts that Assessee has established the identity, genuineness

and creditworthiness of the lender and therefore duly discharged his prima facie onus cast u/s

68 of the Act. Thus, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, is neither

suffering from any perversity or impropriety nor illegality. Hence, the impugned order, is

accordingly upheld.

ITA No. 32/Viz/2025 in case of ACIT Vs. G. N. Cables and Switches c.

Pvt. Ltd. dated 20.05.2025

submissions of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from M/s. Aneri

Fincap Ltd amounting to Rs. 1.50 Crs during the FY 2015-16 and 2016-17. This fact was not

disputed by the Revenue and the Ld. CIT(A) has considered that the unsecured loans to be

genuine transaction and not merely an accommodation entry while adjudicating the appeals

for the FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 in the assessee's own case. It is also noticed that the assessee

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited has taken Rs. 66.25 lakhs as unsecured loans from M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd during the impugned

assessment year which was again considered as accommodation entry and not genuine in

nature by the Revenue. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.5 is reproduced below for

reference:

“6.5. During the appellate proceedings as well as assessment proceedings, the

appellant has duly provided the identity by submitting the PAN and copy of ITR of M/s.

Aneri Fincap Ltd. Further, to prove the genuineness of the transaction the appellant

has submitted its bank statement reflecting the said transaction along with TDS

certificates which shows that TDS had been deducted on the interest paid. Further, with

respect to the creditworthiness, the appellant has submitted annual accounts and bank

statements of the lender also. As per MCA portal the status of lender company is shown

as "active". It shows that M/s Aneri Fincap Limited is a genuine company. Thus, the

addition of Rs. 66,25,000/-on account of unsecured loan and Rs. 9,98,317/-on account

of interest on the loan deserved to be deleted. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete

the addition made of Rs. 66,25,000/-U/s. 68 of the Act and Rs. 9,98,317/-U/s. 69C of

the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 is allowed."

the lender M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. No adverse material has been brought before us by the

Revenue to state that the transaction is a bogus entry. Further, as submitted by the Ld. AR, the

assessee has not entered into any sale or purchase transaction with M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd but

has only taken unsecured loan during various years. In the light of these facts and

circumstances as cited above, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT(A) thereby

dismissing all the grounds raised by the Revenue.”

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited 13. In contradiction to the aforesaid decisions which were relied upon by the

assessee, Ld. DR relied on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Bajaj

International Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) wherein the relevant findings relied

upon by the Ld. DR are as under:

“5.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on

record. The record reveals that Shri Rajesh G. Mehta categorically admitted controlling various

paper entities, including M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., and stated on oath that these entities existed

only for providing accommodation entries without carrying out genuine business. Once it is

admitted by the controlling person that the company in question was merely an

accommodation entry provider with no real business activity, the character of the entity stands

seriously impaired. The absence of a specific reference to the assessee does not exonerate the

transaction and cannot bring M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd. out of entry providers. As the said company

was not having any real business, the entry of the loan provided to the assessee also becomes

in the nature of accommodation entry. The critical fact is that the lender itself stands admitted

to be a paper concern. If the lender has no genuine business existence, the loan transaction

claimed by the assessee necessarily attracts strict scrutiny. Once the source itself is proven to

be a conduit for laundering, the specific naming of a beneficiary becomes secondary to the

established nature of the source. The "OneWorld" and "Pittie" groups were merely examples

of his clientele; his admission regarding the "shell" nature of the lender company remains a

potent piece of evidence that the Assessee failed to rebut. Therefore, reliance placed by the

assessee on some part of the statement of Shri Rajesh G Mehta cannot help. As far as statement

of Urvil Jani is concerned, his statement was with reference to accommodation entries obtained

by 'One World Group' company from Shri Rajesh G Mehta and therefore, his statement must

be related to One World Group entities and cannot be extended to the assessee. But as far as

statement of Shri Rajesh G Mehta is concerned i.e. related to M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., from whom 19

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited the assessee has received entry of the unsecured loans, same can't be ignored. Accordingly, the

ground No. 1.3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

the relevant evidences including details of bank account, ledger copy of the M/s Aneri Fincap

Ltd. etc.

6.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

The assessee was required to discharge its burden of proof in respect of identity,

creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in relation to loan received from M/s Aneri

Fincap Ltd. It is contention of the assessee that assessee had filed bank account details, ledger

copy of M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., bank statement highlighting receipt and repayment of the loan

and interest and financial statement of M/s Aneri Finacap Ltd. filed with Register of Companies.

But in the light of the information gathered during the search on the Rajesh G Metha, wherein

he himself admitted that Aneri Fincap Ltd. was not in any real business and was engaged in

providing accommodation entry only, the onus was on the assessee to establish whether M/s

Aneri Fincap Ltd. was doing any real business and transaction was genuine but neither efforts

were made by the assessee to produce said party for verification of the Assessing Officer nor

brought substantive material demonstrating its financial capacity independent of entry

operations, in order to discharge its burden of proof. Mere routing of funds through banking

channels does not ipso facto establish genuineness.

6.2 The assessee has failed to demonstrate creditworthiness of said party. Before us also no

details documentary evidence in support of creditworthiness have been filed. In the

circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the

addition treating the unsecured loan as explained cash credit.”

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited 14. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions by

both the parties, we find substance in the submissions of Ld. AR that the alleged

loan taken by the assessee cannot be considered to be the cash credit u/s 68 of

the Act, since necessary primary documents are furnished by the lender

company in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Further the allegation of Ld.

CIT(A) while sustaining the addition that no interest was charged by the lender

company, cannot be the sole basis for sustaining the disallowance/ addition

which depends upon the facts of each case. It is also brought on record by the

Ld. AR that the loan was subsequently repaid. Further, the audited annual

accounts of M/s. Aneri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. were also produced before the Ld. AO

copies of which are placed before us at page no. 62 to 86, which was a missing

aspect in the case of Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra).

Therefore, the primary documents required are duly furnished by the assessee

and lender before the Ld. AO. Once, the revenue cannot proceed against the

assessee on the ground that the loan taken was an unexplained cash credit and

the lender was not genuine as laid down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the

case of ACIT Vs. Yogendra Kumar Gupta. The repayment of loan may not be sole

support for the assessee to colour the transaction as genuine. However, once

such repayment of loan in subsequent year was not disputed by the revenue, no

addition was to be made in the case of assessee, on this aspect assessee placed

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs.

Ayarchi Chandrasekhar Narsamji 2014 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat). The case

relied upon by the revenue in the case of Bajaj International Realty Pvt. Ltd.

(supra), leads to the finding that the assessee was unable to furnish any

information before the Ld. AO/ CIT(A) or before the tribunal to demonstrate the

financial capacity of the lender company, whereas in present case, all such

information was furnished before the Ld. AO/ CIT(A) and before us as well.

However, no adverse comments have been recorded by both the lower

authorities. Therefore, such decision shall not stand to the rescue of the case of

revenue.

the considered view that the assessee has furnished all the primary documents

by itself or through the lender company. Also, the transactions with same lender

company in 3 of the ITAT decisions has been treated as genuine, the assessee

has sufficiently discharged the onus caused on him in terms of identity,

creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction, no adverse view

can be adopted. We accordingly, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the

Ld. AO to delete the disallowance u/s 68 made vide the impugned order.

ITA No. 7192/Mum/2025; Shanti Gold International Limited 16. Since Ground No. 3 of assessee on merits is decided in favour of the

assessee, any other legal contention raised by the assessee becomes academic

and infructuous. Therefore, are not adjudicated separately.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18-06-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ARUN KHODPIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 18-06-2026. Soumili Das, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai