ANUNAY FAB LIMITED,AHEMADBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 152/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the loan was repaid within a short period and prior to any adverse action, it cannot be considered a bogus or accommodation entry. The repayment of the loan negates the allegation of it being an income.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 85,00,000/- which was added by the AO as an accommodation entry. The assessee contended that the loan was short-term and repaid within 10-12 days, prior to any search action.

What were the issues?

Whether an unsecured loan, alleged to be an accommodation entry, can be added to income if it is repaid shortly after receipt and before any search action?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahta &, Shri Vihar Soni, A.Rs
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 28-11-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 85,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act representing short term unsecured loan obtained from M/s Radhe Corporation, proprietorship concern of Mr. Harish M Purohit, alleging the same to be accommodation entry transaction. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the loan obtained from Radhe Corporation was a short term loan and repaid within a period of 10-12 days from the date of receipt

I.T.A No. 152/Ahd/2026 Anunay Fab Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 thereof and therefore, the addition thereof is not sustainable in law. 2.1 Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the repayment of the concerned loan of Rs. 85,00,000/- obtained from M/s Radhe Corporation had been made very much prior to the search action conducted u/s 132 of the I.T. Act in case of Mr. Sanjay Tibrewal in year 2019. 3. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3.

The return of income was originally filed on 18/11/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 75,48,300/- and the assessment was made u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 27/02/03 determining total income of Rs. 78,88,420/-. Thereafter the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act on 12/03/2020 in response to the notice return of income filed on 25/02/2021. Thereafter the assessment order has been passed by National Faceless Assessment Center Delhi (herein after referred to as A.O.) u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, wherein total addition of Rs. 85,00,000 /- has been made on account of bogus accommodation entry in the nature of unsecured loan.

4.

The ld. A.R. submitted that loan was of very short duration and repaid: It is further stated that as can be seen from the confirmation that the loan was for a very short duration. The loan was taken in parts and was returned within 10 to 11 days. We further state that none of the loan is pending for repayment. All the loans have been repaid. As stated the loans were taken for a short term purpose and under no circumstances it can be said that the transaction is not genuine. When the loan is not outstanding and has been repaid then under no circumstances it can be said that the same is not genuine. There is no linkage that this advances are converted into cash. Mere presumption of

I.T.A No. 152/Ahd/2026 Anunay Fab Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 the AO cannot be the reason for reopening of the case. We further state that even assuming it was an accommodation entry then also the same is repaid within very short time and therefore there is no income which is liable to be taxed. Similar issue was involved in the case of Picheswar Gadde vs. ITO 211 TTJ (Del 'F') 887 wherein it was decided that - Since the amount received by the assessee from a company was a loan which has been repaid was part repayment of the loan given by the assessee in earlier years, addition of both the amount is not sustainable. Having discussed above facts, we now wish to refer to the decision pronounced by Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal in case of Gopi Synthetics Private Limited (supra) wherein the said assessee had obtained loan from Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and the same was added by the AO to its total income basis the same allegation of accommodation entry which was based on the search action carried out in case of Mr. Mukesh Banka. The Hon'ble CIT(A) passed a meticulous order having considered all relevant details and facts of the case and deleted the said addition observing that the entire loan obtained by the said assessee was repaid to Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. before the search action was carried out in case of Mr. Mukesh Banka / Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. The said Order of Hon'ble CIT(A) was found to be warranting no interference by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal. The relevant extract of the decision pronounced by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal which also contains the reproduction of decision of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced as under (runs from this page to first half of page 10):

"...2. Brief facts are that for the Asst. Year 2017-18 the assessee filed its Return of Income on 26-10-2027 declaring total income of Rs. 3,13,63,890/- which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened based 3

I.T.A No. 152/Ahd/2026 Anunay Fab Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 on the information from DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee received accommodation entry of Rs.1,25,00,145/; Rs.23,00,000/= and Rs.95,00,000/= from M/s. Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Aastha Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Gainwell Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. which are all Paper/Shell companies controlled by Shri Mukesh Banka, Entry Operator.

2.1. Whereas the assessee claimed that it had received unsecured loan of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- M/s. Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and also repaid the said unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS on it and all the transaction were done through banking channel. Similar is case for the other two unsecured loans which were repaid with interest along with TDS u/s.194A of the Act.

3.

The AO has not accepted the above explanation of the assessee and added the unsecured loans as unexplained income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon.

4.

Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT[A] who deleted the additions made by the AO after considering the evidences of repayment of loans with interest by observing as follows:

"... 5.5 Further, on perusal of ledger account, it is clearly seen that the appellant had repaid the entire outstanding unsecured loan of Rs 1,34,39,513/- along with interest during F.Y 2017-18 to the lender party. It is also important to mention here that the appellant has also deducted TDS on interest paid to the lender party. Thus, it is observed that the appellant has taken the unsecured loan and repaid the said amount with Interest after deducting TDS on it. It is relevant to reproduce the copy of ledger account and copy of relevant page of bank statement.

5.6 It is also worthwhile to mention here that a search/survey action in the case of Banka Group was conducted on 21.05.2018. However, the appellant had already made repayment of unsecured loan along with interest by deducting TDS before the date of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is one of the beneficiaries who had taken accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loan from M/s Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration,

I.T.A No. 152/Ahd/2026 Anunay Fab Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 5.9 In view of the above factual discussions and legal matrix of the case, the AO is directed to delete the addition made of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. Thus, the ground of appeal no. 3 is allowed.

6.1 I have carefully perused the assessment order and submission filed by the appellant. It is observed from assessment order that interest paid by the appellant of Rs.2,60,199/- on loan amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- taken from M/s Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd was disallowed. The appellant submitted that it had repaid the loan along with interest. ......

5.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: ......

6.

Heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Books filed by the assessee. As far as unsecured creditors of M/s. Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. the assessee paid interest of Rs.6,79,314/- as on 31-03-2018 with appropriate TDS of Rs. 67,931/-. Website copy of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in the name of M/s. Gurumukh Mercantile Pvt. clearly shown it's an active company and the last AGM held on 16-08-2023 and the company status is shown as "active" by Registrar of Companies, Kolkata.

6.1. The Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not dispute the above facts and the findings arrived by Ld. CIT(A). Similar is the case for M/s. Aashta Commtrade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Gainwell Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. wherein the loans have been repaid with interest and appropriate TDS.

7.

In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd. reported in (2023) 156 taxmann.com 75 held as follows:

"Where assessee showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that assessee failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68, since amount of loan received by assessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted."

I.T.A No. 152/Ahd/2026 Anunay Fab Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 8. Similarly Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ganesh Plantation Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 149 held as follows:

"Where Assessing Officer initiated reassessment on basis of information that search in case of Venus Group showed that amount of Rs. 4 crores had been received by assessee from Builders of Venus Group through banking channel against corresponding payment of unaccounted cash by assessee to Builders, and considered this as accommodation entry and made addition under section 68, since no live link/proximate nexus of alleged dubious transactions between searched person and assessee had been brought on record, said addition was to be deleted."

9.

Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Thus the Grounds raised by the Revenue are devoid of merits the same are liable to be dismissed.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed...."

Similar is the case on hand of assessee as the loan received by it was repaid within a very short period of 10-12 days which was much prior to the date of search action carried out in case of Mr. Sanjay Tibrewal in year 2018.

5.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the contention of the assessee that the assessee has repaid the loan within the short span and in fact categorically raised the doubt as repayment was made immediately after the loan taken. The assessee at no point of time has given the details of TDS deducted thereby stating that the amount was below the

I.T.A No. 152/Ahd/2026 Anunay Fab Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 threshold limit but some of the amount was above the threshold limit which was not detailed or explained by the assessee. The A.R. relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal wherein the repayment was considered and the relief was granted to the assessee but in all those cases the decision was purely on the factual basis of the set of facts of the said assessee’s cases. But in this present assessee’s case, the assessee has to give the plausible explanation as to why this amount was repaid without deducting taxes at source when there was a prescribed threshold which shows that TDS has to be deducted in certain conditions. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is justified .

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23-04-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 23/04/2026 TRUE COPY a.k. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →