DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLINT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the Order, dated 10/09/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal – 51, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 09/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3)r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’],for the Assessment year 2012-2013. 2. Ground raised by the Revenue are as under:

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition Rs. 16,02,50,000/- as against the addition made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credits transaction made by the assessee with entity M/s. Moonscape Services Private Limited without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to conclusively establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the party involved.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition Rs.2,97,00,000/- as against the addition made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credits transaction made by the assessee with entity M/s. Brown Trading Private Limited without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to conclusively establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the party involved

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition Rs.6,07,00,000/- as against the addition made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credits transaction made by the assessee with entity M/s. Naksh Corporate Solutions Private Limited without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to conclusively establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the party involved.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition Rs.3,21,75,000/- as against the addition made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credits transaction made by the assessee with entity M/s. VishwasFinvest Private Limited (merged with Amish Infrastructure Private Limited) without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to conclusively establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the party involved."

The relevant facts in briefs are that in the Assessee, a private limited company engaging in construction business, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29/09/2012 declaring income of INR.51,23,180/- which was revised by way of return of income filed on 31/02/2013. The aforesaid revised return filed by the Assessee declaring income of INR.50,99,480/- was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Later, information was received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit 2(1), Mumbai to that effect that the Assessee had indulged in high number of interconnected fund transfers without any economic rationale with the intent of layering funds. Therefore, reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the Assessee. The said reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of Assessment Order, dated 09/12/2019,under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.5,58,49,480/- after making addition of INR.5,07,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the following loans received from 2 parties:

Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 passed Order, dated 16/03/2022, under Section 263 of the Actdirecting the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment after carrying out necessary inquiries/verification.

In the set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for information/details from the Assessee and passed Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2023, under Section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed income of the income at INR.33,76,74480/- after making following additions under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loan taken from the following 5 parties: Sr.No. Particular Amount (INR.)

We have considered the rival submissions (oral/written) and have perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Assessing Officer has returned following findings in relations to the loans received by the Assessee from the above 5 parties identified by the Assessing Officer:

On the other hand, while deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Learned CIT(A) has returned the following findings in the order impugned by way of the present appeal:

3

On the issue of addition of Rs. 5,07,50,000/-, we find that assessee has received this sum from Moonscape Facility management Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.15 lacs and Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. of Rs 4,92,50,000/- The assessee has submitted copy of the account of these companies from books of assessee, which is placed at page no. 41 onwards of the paper book. On looking at the ledger account it is apparent that assessee has not received only Rs.50 lacs from Moonscape facility services management Pvt Limited but has received total of Rs. 16,02,50,000/- All these sums have been repaid during the year Therefore, out of the total sum received of Rs.16.2 crores the learned Assessing Officer has only doubted Rs. 15 lacs. Further, in case of Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd., the learned Assessing Officer had made addition with respect to Rs. 4,92,50,000/, whereas the account shows that assessee has received Rs. 4,97,50,000/- during the year and also same have been repaid. Thus major part of credit is accepted in Moon space facility management services Limited and part also in Nifty Realty Limited. The assessee has submitted its bank account to show that the above sum was received in Kotak Bank account of the assessee. To prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction the assessee submitted bank accounts of the lenders. The source of the funds in Moonscape Facility management Pvt. Ltd. is short term loans and advances from the group concern of Rs.37 crores. Income tax return of the entity along with confirmation and bank account of the lender was also submitted. The bank account of the lender clearly shows the name of the concerns from whom the money was received. It is apparent that in most of the cases Moonscape Facility management Pvt. Ltd. received money in its bank account from the DMK Laboratories Ltd. or German holdings Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, in case of Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. the Annual report of the lender was provided which shows the source of fund of Rs.21, 19,85,000/- from corporate bodies, assessee also submitted the confirmation of accounts and bank statement of the lender. In that bank statement also it is evident that the money has been received from different entity. Admittedly, as stated by the learned Authorized Representative, there is no allegation in the report of the DDIT that these are unaccounted sum. The only allegation is that between the group concerns there are huge transactions which does not have any rationale. In the case of Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd., it is also assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26th March, 2015. It is also apparent that Id AO did not make any inquiry on the details submitted by the assessee. Thus, initial onus is discharged by assessee of proving Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. Such onus is required to be thrown back by Id AO by making inquiry.

In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Act for the reason that; a. Assessee has shown identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transitions by producing, bank accounts, annual reports and income tax return and assessment order of the lender. Thus, initial onus is discharged. b. The learned Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry to show that initial onus discharged by the assessee is not proper c. In the reasons recorded, information received the only issue is high value transaction in bank account of the assessee does not have any rationale.

Thus, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A), dismissing the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee.

4 I therefore find that the sum received from M/s Nifty Realty Pvt Ltd and M/s Moonscape Facility Management Services Pvt Ltd, although partly, has already been considered and the treatment of the AO in taking them as unexplained cash credit has been deleted. The AO in the instant order has once again brought to tax the amounts received from these parties and deleted by the ITAT as unexplained cash credit. Since the order of the ITAT deleting the addition has not been overruled by the Bombay High Court, the action of the AO in adding back the same amount without any additional facts or finding is not correct. Moreover, from the perusal of the bank statement of the lender is it clear that the sources from which the money has been forwarded by these parties stands explained. In view of the above and considering the decision of the ITAT as reproduced above, the addition of Rs. 16,02,50,000/-received from M/s Moonscape Facility Management Pvt Ltd and of Rs.4,97,50,000/-from M/s Nifty Realty Pvt Ltd is deleted.

6 In the present case, the appellant has duly discharged the onus cast upon it under section 68 by furnishing a complete set of documentary evidences in support of the loans. The identity of the lenders has been established through their PAN, income-tax return acknowledgments and other statutory particulars. The bank statement of the lenders does not show any cash deposit and the transfer entries are clearly identifiable. The genuineness of the transactions thus stands proved. Creditworthiness has been demonstrated by filing audited financial statements and bank statements of the lender companies, which clearly show that sufficient funds were available to them at the time of advancing the loans. In view of these facts, I am of the view that the appellant has discharged the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act by furnishing complete details and evidences to establish the identity of the lenders, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the parties. There is no material on record to suggest that the evidences furnished by the appellant are not genuine and since there is nothing further to challenge the evidences submitted by the appellant, the addition of Rs.12,25,75,000/- from the 3 parties is deleted.

7 For reasons as stated in para 7.4 and 7.6 above, the entire addition of Rs.33,25,75,000/- is deleted and the grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed.” The above, findings returned by the Learned CIT(A) can be summarized as under: (a) The Assessee has duly discharged the onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act by furnishing complete set of documentary evidence in respect of the loans transactions under consideration. The bank statement of the lenders did not show any cash deposits before transfer entries. The Assessing Officer did not carry out any inquiry/ investigation to bring on record any material to challenge the evidences furnished by the Assessee.The Assessee had furnishedcopies of income-tax return acknowledgments of the lender parties, confirmations of accounts, extracts of bank statements of the Assessee reflecting loan transactions, extracts of bank statements of the lenders evidencing corresponding entries, and audited financial statements of the lenders. Since the aforesaid evidences were on record, the onus shifted to the Assessing Officer to make independent verification which was not done in the present case.

On perusal of record, we find that the above findings returned by the Learned CIT(A) in the present case are supported by the material on record. We note that during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, the Assessee had filed partial response on 22/11/2019 to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) of the Act and had placed before the Assessing Officer following details in respect of the lenders (including the 5 lenders under consideration). The relevant extract of the said partial response letter reads as under: “With respect to the above and under instructions from our above client, we would like to Inform your goodself that our client had received notice for providing the details in the set aside case of above mentioned assessee company for A.Y. 2012-13. In this case basic submissions were made in response to the notice issued. ➤Point No.1: Copy of Computation of Income, P&L A/c and Balance Sheet is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. ➤ Point No.2: Detailed note on business activity and types of revenue income is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. ➤ Point No. 3: Copy of all bank account statements is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. ➤ Point No. 4: details of transactions entered by the assessee company with below mentioned entities is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records.

We note that in the set-aside proceedings show-cause notice, dated 26/03/2023, was issued by the Assessing Officer [placed at 82 to 88 of the paper book filed by the Assessee]. In the said show-cause notice, after giving factual background, the Assessing Officer had listed following transactions for verification: Sr. Name of the Company/Entity Debit Credit No 1. VishwasFinvestP.Ltd. 12,29,70,000 1,55,02,000 [Now merged with Amish Infrastructure P. Ltd]

Moonscape Facility Management P Ltd 7,06,55,000 16,02,50,000

Nifty Realty P.Ltd 4,97,50,000 4,97,50,000

Amish Infrastructure P.Ltd 1,90,00,000 3,15,98,000 5. 15,79,65,000 18,56,60,487 Nivedita Mercantile and Financing Ltd [Now known as Starteck]

Satguru Capital 39,65,119 13,96,261 [Now known as S.W. Capital Pvt. Ltd]

Brown Trading P. Ltd - 2,97,00,000 Total 42,43,05,119 47,38,56,748

We note that the Assessing Officer has not listed Naksh IT Solutions Pvt Ltd as one of the parties. Further, the Assessee had already furnished supporting details/documents related to Naksh IT Solutions Pvt Ltd along with Letter, dated 22/11/2019. We further note that in response to the above show-cause notice, the Assessee filed detailed reply on 28/03/2023 placing on record relevant documents and details relating to all the parties listed by the Assessing Officer in the above show-cause notice, dated 26/03/2023. The relevant extract of the said reply reads as under: “With reference to the captioned matter, we would like to inform you that we are in receipt of show cause notice dated 23.06.2023 wherein your goodself have asked to show cause as to why an amount of INR.47,38,56,748/- being amount received from the following parties should not be treated as non-genuine and added to the total income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Amish Infrastructure P.Ltd&VishwasFinvestP.Ltd In this regard we submit that we/lender had already provided the detalls in order to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the companies during the course of assessment proceedings. The details of documents submitted before your goodself is as under:  Ledger account confirmation  Copy of extract of bank account statements of the assessee company highlighting the transactions with above lenders;  Copy of ITR and PAN number of the lenders  Copy of financial statements of the lenders  Copy of extract of bank account statement of the lenders highlighting the transactions with the assessee company;  Acknowledgement copy of reply submitted by the lender in response to the summon issued u/s.131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10 Thus, from perusal of the above, it is clear that the assessee company has discharged its onus by submitting all the documents in order to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. However, your goodself has not verified the details properly and alleged that the said transaction is non genuine and also proposed the addition u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Nifty Realty Private Limited In this regard we submit that we had already provided the details in order to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the companies during the course of assessment proceedings. The details of documents submitted before your goodself is as under:  Ledger account confirmation  Copy of extract of bank account statements of the assessee company highlighting the transactions with above lenders;  Copy of ITR and PAN number of the lenders  Copy of financial statements of the lenders  Copy of extract of bank account statement of the lenders highlighting the transactions with the assessee company;  Acknowledgement copy of reply submitted by the lender in response to the summon issued u/s.131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, from perusal of the above it is clear that the assessee company has discharged its onus by submitting all the documents in order to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. However, your goodself has not verified the details properly and alleged that the said transaction is non genuine and also proposed the addition u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard we submit that earlier assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 09.12.2019, in the said assessment order, the addition u/s.68 was made for the loan taken from M/s. Nifty Realty Private Limited. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A), who vide order dated 10.03.2023, treated the said loan as genuine and deleted the addition. We are enclosing herewith the said CIT(A) order for your read reference and records. Thus, the said issue was already dealt by the CIT(A) and CIT(A) already confirm the said loan as genuine, in such circumstances no addition can be made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, you are kindly requested to drop the proposed addition u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Moonscape Services Private Limited In this regard we submit that we had already provided the details in order to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the companies during the course of assessment proceedings. The details of documents submitted before your goodself is as under  Ledger account confirmation  Copy of extract of bank account statements of the assessee company highlighting the transactions with above lenders;

On perusal of above we find that the Assessee had placed on the assessment records, relevant documents, details pertaining to all the five parties/lenders in respect of which additions have been made by the Assessing Officer. The Learned CIT(A) has after examining the said records concluded that the Assessee had discharged the onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act. The finding returned by the Learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring on record any material to dispute the documentary evidence furnished by the Assessee has gone uncontroverted during the appellate proceedings before this Tribunal. The Assessee has also placed on record copy of the Order, dated 10/03/2025, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee [ITA No.2166/Mum/2023 arising from order passed by Learned CIT(A) on 10/03/2023 pertaining to the Assessment Year: 2012-2013], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 09/12/2019, passed in the case of the Assessee under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. We find that the Tribunal had deleted addition of INR.4,92,50000/- and INR.15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loans received from Nifty Realty Private Limited and Moonscape Facility Management Private Limited, respectfully, concluding as under:

Thus, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A), dismissing the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee.”

We find that even in the set-aside proceedings the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any material to dispute documentary evidences furnished by the Assessee to shift the onus back to the Assessee. We have already noted herein above that the Assessee had filed relevant documents and details during the assessment proceedings which were again placed before the Learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. The contention of the Revenue that Learned CIT(A) had proceeded to grant relief to the Assessee by taking into consideration additional evidence not forming part of the assessment record is also not supported by the material on record. Therefore, concurring with the view taken by the Learned CIT(A), we hold that the Assessee has discharged the initial onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act as the Assessee had placed before the Assessing Officer relevant documents and details. We further note that the Assessing Officer has, in Paragraph 4.1 of the Assessment Order, recorded that the transaction under consideration were made by way of fund transfer through bank account amongst entities relating to Suntech Group. In addition Learned CIT(A) has recorded that there were no cash deposits before transfer of funds between the entities. The aforesaid findings have gone uncontroverted during the appellate proceedings. Given the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue and therefore, we decline to interfere with the order passed by Learned CIT(A).

In view of above, Ground No. 1 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु"/ The CIT

"धान आयकर आयु"/ Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड"फाईल / Guard file.