DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DIMPLE ROBIN GOENKA , AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member IT(SS)A Nos: 19/Ahd/2025 & ITA No. 495/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dimple Robin Goenka The ACIT Plot No. 3, Sankalp Central Circle-1(2), House Vs Ahmedabad Near Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380054 PAN: ANDPG9739Q IT(SS)A Nos: 37/Ahd/2025 & ITA No. 876/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

The DCIT Dimple Robin Goenka Central Circle-1(2), Plot No. 3, Sankalp Ahmedabad House Near Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380054 (Appellant) PAN: ANDPG9739Q (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 24-04-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee and Revenue as against the separate appellate orders dated 04-02-2025 and 24-02-

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 2 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since common issues of disallowances made u/s. 68 of the Act are involved in all these appeals, for the sake convenience the same are disposed of by this common order.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 3 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and assessee filed a rejoinder to the Remand Report. After considering the above documents, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made u/s. 68 by observing as follows:

“……6.3 I have perused the assessment order, submission, remand report of the AO as well as rejoinder filed by the appellant. On perusal of assessment order, it is seen that the AO made addition of Rs.3,44,70,713/- on account of unsecured loan received from the following 12 lenders as under.

6.3.1 Further, on perusal of remand report dated 05.07.2023, it is observed that the AO has accepted the creditworthiness and genuineness of the following lenders in respect of unsecured loan as under:

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 4 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

6.3.2 In view of above, the addition to the extent of Rs.86,50,001/- in respect of the unsecured loan received from aforesaid five lenders are hereby deleted. 6.4 Further, in respect of remaining lenders, the discussion is as under- 1. AAVKAR CORPORATION (Rs.5,00,000/-) On perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant received unsecured loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from Aavkar Corporation during the year under consideration. The AO in his remand report submitted that the appellant produced copy of confirmation and 1 page of the bank statement of Aavkar Corporation for the relevant period which indicates that Aavkar Corporation had balance of Rs.9,26,610/- on the date of transfer and out of which it had paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through banking channel as unsecured loan to the appellant. The AO further submitted that the appellant has not submitted full bank statement which could justify with clarity that the appellant had recurring positive bank balance in the bank account during the year under consideration and also the appellant has not attached any balance sheet which could justify surplus fund/ accumulated fund with the Aavkar Corporation. In rejoinder, the appellant submitted tax audit report along with financial statements of Aavkar Corporation and computation of total income. 1.1 In this regard, on perusal of the capital account and current assets of Aavkar Corporation for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, it is seen that Aavkar Corporation had creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the creditworthiness of the party is in doubt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.5,00,000 u/s. 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. 2. Bhadresh R Reshwala (Rs.48,00,000/-) On perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant received unsecured loan of Rs.48,00,000/- from Bhadresh R Reshwala during the year under consideration. The AO in his remand report doubted the creditworthiness of Shri Bhadresh R Reshwala as the appellant did not provided copy of balance sheet, bank account of depositor etc. In rejoinder, the appellant submitted the letter of lender confirming the transactions and source of transactions along with computation of total income and bank statement of Shri Bhadresh R Reshwala. 2.1 In this regard, on perusal of the confirmation letter dated 20.08.2023 of Shri Bhadresh R Reshwala, it is observed that Shri Bhadresh R Reshwala had confirmed about unsecured loan of Rs.48,00,000/- on various dates to the appellant through banking channel and source of the same is sale of shares and mutual funds. In this regard, on perusal of acknowledgment of return of income for A.Y.2018-19 of Shri Bhadresh R Reshwala, it is seen

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 5 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

that he had declared total income at Rs.2,96,790/- and claimed exempt income of Rs. 72,76,699/- which are verifiable from the computation of total income for A.Y.2018-19. Hence, it is evident that Shri Bhadresh R Reshwala had creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs.48,00,000/- to the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the creditworthiness of the party is in doubt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.48,00,000 u/s. 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. 3. Devendra Vaghela (Rs. 10,00,000/-) On perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant received unsecured loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Devendra Vaghela during the year under consideration. The AO in his remand report doubted the creditworthiness of Shri Devendra Vaghela as the appellant did not provided copy of balance sheet, bank account of depositor etc. In rejoinder, the appellant submitted the bank statement of Shri Devendra Vaghela. 3.1 In this regard, on perusal of the bank statement of Shri Devendra Vaghela, it is seen that amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was transferred to the appellant and before transferring the same, Shri Devendra Vaghela had enough credit balance in his bank account. Further, Shri Devendra Vaghela had shown returned income of Rs.9,88,810/- and exempt agricultural income of Rs. 19,15,890/-. In view of the above, it is evident that Shri Devendra Vaghela had creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the creditworthiness of the party is in doubt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 10,00,000 u/s. 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. 4. GRACE APPT. CHSL (Rs.4,40,082/-) On perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant received unsecured loan of Rs.4,40,082/- from Grace Appt. CHSL during the year under consideration. The AO in his remand report doubted the creditworthiness of Grace Appt. CHSL rejoinder, the appellant submitted the financial statements of Grace Appt. CHSL 4.1 In this regard, on perusal of the balance sheet of Grace Appt. CHSL, it is seen that Grace Appt. CHSL was having maintenance deposit of Rs.64,90,000/-along with sundry debtors of Rs.34,22,810/-. However, loan given to the appellant is only Rs.4,40,082/- which shows Grace Appt. CHSL, had creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs.4,40,082/- to the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the creditworthiness of the party is in doubt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.4,40,082/-u/s. 68 of the Act is hereby deleted.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 6 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 7 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

of income for A.Y.2018-19 of Mayurika Reshawala, it is seen that he had declared total income at Rs.1,29,830/- and claimed exempt income of Rs.70,02,238/-which are verifiable from the computation of total income for A.Y.2018-19. Further, it is also observed that Mayurika Reshawala had shown sale value of securities on account of STCG is Rs.2,69,765/-and on account of LTCG of Rs.76,72,990/-. Hence, it is evident that Mayurika Reshawala had creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs.81,50,000/- to the appellant during the year under consideration. Hence, it cannot be said that the creditworthiness of the party is in doubt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.81,50,000 u/s. 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. 7. PRADIP C PATEL (Rs.70,65,917/-) On perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant received unsecured loan of Rs. 70,65,917/- from Pradip C Patel on various dates during the year under consideration. The AO in his remand report doubted the creditworthiness of Pradip C Patel, In rejoinder, the appellant submitted the computation of income and audit report along with financial statements of Pradip C Patel. 7.1 In this regard, on perusal of the capital account of Pradip C Patel for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, it is seen that Pradip C Patel had capital balancé of Rs. 1,03.39.635/- as on 31.03.2017 and of Rs.1,08,42,081/- as on 31.03.2018. Further, Pradip C Patel had declared total income of Rs. 14,37,920/- in his return of income for A.Y.2018-19. In view of the above, it is evident that Pradip C Patel had creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs.70,65,917/- to the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the creditworthiness of the party is in doubt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs.70,65,917/-u/s. 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. 6.5 In nutshell, as per the detailed discussion made in para 6 of this order, the AO is directed to delete the entire addition of Rs.3,44,70,713/- made u/s.68 of the Act for the year under consideration. Thus, the ground no.2 of appeal is allowed.”

3.1. Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made u/s. 68 received from Narayani Enterprise by observing as follows:

“…..8.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the said loan has been repaid back by the appellant. The appellant further submitted an alternate argument vide submission dated 21.01.2025 that if in any case, if the same was considered as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the appellant, then it can at the most only be presumed that the appellant had given cash to the said Shri Lalabhai who is a Loan Broker

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 8 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

and he had arranged cheques/bank entries as loan in the hands of the appellant. 8.2.1 Further, the appellant submitted that as emerged from the search that in AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, the Only Real project which could have generated any Cash was Sankalp Iconic undertaken by Sankalp Venture LLP, wherein the husband of the appellant i.e. Robin Goenka was a 65% partner and the assessment of Sankalp Venture LLP was completed and also the Ld.CIT(A) passed order dated 30.03.2023 in the case of Sankalp Venture LLP wherein Gross On-money Estimated Extrapolated on the basis of agreement Value. The appellant further submitted that the cash generated in the hands of Sankalp Venture LLP attributed as Cash withdrawn by the appellant's husband as Capital Withdrawal and applied in taking unsecured loan in the books of account of the appellant and as on when the loan had been repaid back, the cash received had been reintroduced by the appellant as her husband Capital in Sankalp Venture LLP, which in turn was utilized by Sankalp Venture LLP to incur its cash expenses for its real estate project. 8.2.2 The appellant also submitted that it is a natural corollary of law that the source of income as well its application cannot be brought to tax, as the same is against the principle of taxation laws i.e, no income or amount should be brought to be taxed twice unless and otherwise specifically mentioned under the law. Since the source of cash/unexplained cash credit can be attributed to cash receipts from Sankalp Venture LLP and the cash so introduced can be also attributed to have reached back to the very same source on repayment of loans, the same stands explained and hence the addition of Rs 90 lacs be kindly deleted accordingly. The appellant relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of her contentions. 8.3 On perusal of records, it is observed that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant received unsecured loan of Rs.90,00,000/- from M/s. Narayani Enterprise, Prop. Nipul Hasmukh Soni during the year under consideration. Further, it is observed that as per investigation carried out DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad, Axis Bank account No.914020048526281 was maintained in the name of Nipul Hasmukh Soni who was a deceased person and said Axis bank account was controlled and operated by Mr. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta (popularly known as 'Lalbhai Vakta'). The AO in his remand report stated that the appellant submitted the required documents i.e. the confirmations, bank statement and copy of ITR, however, since the creditor was non-existent in nature and the accounts were operated by an accommodation entry provider, the said documents do not have any evidentiary value. 8.3.1 On perusal of reply filed by the appellant, she submitted that the cash generated in the hands of Sankalp Venture LLP has been attributed as Cash withdrawn by the appellant's husband as Capital Withdrawal and applied in

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 9 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

taking unsecured loan in the books of account of the appellant. The working of the same furnished by the appellant is as under:

8.3.2. Further, the appellant submitted a chart of movement of funds as under:

8.3.3 Further, my predecessor vide appeal order dated 30.03.2023 in the case of Sankalp Venture LLP observed that Sankalp Venture LLP had received unaccounted receipts from its Real Estate business and had also incurred expenditure against the same and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.4,56,95,783/- made on account of unaccounted cash receipts and expenses. The relevant para no. 12. 16 of the aforesaid order is as under

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 10 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

12.16 Hence the addition on account of the grounds of appeal amounting to Rs.4,56,95,783/- is confirmed. The year wise income under the head business is arrived accordingly and detailed hereunder.

8.3.4 Therefore, it is evident that the source of cash/unexplained cash credit can be attributed to cash receipts from Sankalp Venture LLP and the cash so introduced can be also attributed to have reached back to the very same source on repayment of loans. 8.4 In view of the above, I find that since the source of credit has already been brought to tax in the hands of Sankalp Venture LLP and the appellant is mere a conduit, hence the appellant is allowed the telescoping for source of such bogus loan from Narayani Enterprise. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.90,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act is hereby deleted. Thus, the ground no.4 of appeal is allowed.”

3.2. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act by observing as follows:

“….7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the AO made an error in assuming that since the appellant had incurred interest expenses of Rs.11,73,434/-, the appellant ought to have made disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The AO had ignored to the fact that the said interest expenses of Rs. 11,73,434/- incurred by the appellant was under its proprietorship concern Sankalp Developers which was primarily engaged in raising funds and deploying the same for interest income and the said proprietorship concern had not made any investment in any assets which yields any exempt income. The appellant further submitted that the nexus of Interest Income and Interest Expense is directly correlated to each other and provisions of section 14A of the Act are squarely not applicable to the said interest expenses as incurred by the appellant. Hence, the addition made u/s. 14A of the Act is completely unwarranted in the case of the appellant. Further, the appellant relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of her contentions.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 11 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

7.3 On perusal of records, it is seen that the share capital of the appellant was negative with the result that the appellant had to resort to secured/unsecured borrowings of huge amounts ie. Rs.8,55,22,86,181/-. Hence, the claim that investment was made out of interest free funds is not tenable. Further, the appellant failed to make a specific mention to show which particular funds were borrowed for which particular requirement and in the absence of such specific utilization, Rule 8D of I.T. Rule, 1962 is applicable and also the appellant was not having separate account for surplus funds or profit earned during the year which shows that it is a case of mixed funds. 7.4 It is evident from the above that loans taken from bank and other party were not utilized for the business purpose exclusively but were actually utilized for investment in various mutual funds/share which yielded exempted income. Hence, I find that the AO has rightly invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act and therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,73,434/- made u/s.14A of the Act is confirmed. Thus, the ground no.3 of appeal is dismissed.”

3.3. Thus Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and partly confirmed the addition.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 12 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

4.1. Revenue is in appeal before us in IT(SS)A No.37/Ahd/2025 raising the following Grounds of Appeal:

1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,58,20,712/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 holding that creditworthiness of the parties cannot be doubted and without considering remand report that the assessee has failed to provide proper documentation such as bank statements, balance sheets, and other supporting details. 2) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.90,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 holding that source of cash /unexplained cash

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 13 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

credit can be attributed to cash receipts from Sankalp Venture LLP and without considering remand report and seized data in the form of Diaries. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the parties lies with the assessee, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the creditworthiness of the creditors during the remand proceedings as well assessment proceedings. 4) The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal."

5.1. Regarding Ground No. 1 deleting the addition of Rs.2,58,20,712. Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings called for the Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and considered the Rejoinder filed by the assessee on the loan transactions and repayment with all financial statements. The issue for adjudication is whether the unsecured loans received by the assessee from eight parties are liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. The details of the loan creditors along with evidences furnished by the assessee have been examined and are summarized as under:

Sr. Name of Amount Identity Creditworthiness Genuineness No. Party (Rs.) Aavkar Corporation 5,00,000 Established through Sufficient capital 1 PAN, ITR, reflected in financials Transaction routed

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 14 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

Financials & bank statement through banking channels; ledger & confirmation on record

Loan received Bank statement Bhadresh R. Reshamwala 48,00,000 Identity proved via through banking 2 evidences availability PAN, ITR channel; of funds confirmation filed PAN & ITR Bank statement Devendra Transaction 3 10,00,000 acknowledgement on shows fund Vaghela through bank; duly record availability confirmed Banking Registered entity; Grace Appt. Financial statments transactions 4 4,40,082 PAN & registration CHSL support capacity corroborated; certificate filed reflected in both accounts Source of funds Routed through Jigen H. Shah 38,64,713 PAN, ITR and source 5 explained; bank banking channel; details furnished statements support duly recorded and confirmed Bank statements Mayurika Reshamwala 81,50,000 Identity established Loan transaction 6 indicate adequate via PAN & ITR genuine; through funds banking channels PAN, ITR, audit Financials and bank Transactions Pradip C. 7 70,65,917 report establish statements verifiable from Patel identity demonstrate capacity bank; confirmation on record PAN, ITR, audit Financials Narayani Loan routed 8 90,00,000 report establish substantiate Enterprise through bank; duly identity creditworthiness reflected in books

5.2. From the aforesaid details, it is observed that the assessee has furnished, in respect of each of the creditors, the ledger accounts,

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 15 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

confirmations, copies of income tax returns, financial statements and bank statements. Thus, the identity of the creditors stands duly established. Further, the creditworthiness of the creditors is supported by their respective financial statements and bank accounts reflecting availability of sufficient funds at the time of advancing the loans. In certain cases, the source of funds has also been explained by the creditors. As regards the genuineness of the transactions, it is noted that all the loan transactions have been carried out through normal banking channels and are duly recorded in the books of account of both the assessee and the lenders. There is no material brought on record to suggest that the transactions are non-genuine or represent accommodation entries.

5.3. The Assessing Officer has made the addition primarily on the basis of suspicion and without bringing any cogent material on record to controvert the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. It is a settled position of law that once the assessee discharges the initial onus cast upon it under section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, the burden shifts upon the Revenue to disprove the same. However, the Revenue could not contravent the above findings of Ld. CIT(A) with relevant materials in support of its Ground No.1. In the absence of same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A).

5.4. Further the loans were repaid by the assessee which was not disputed by the Revenue, therefore no addition can be made on account of cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act has held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the Case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 wherein it was held as follows:

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 16 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

“Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Loans] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143(3) wherein he made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one 'IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of 'IA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan of Rs. 1.60 crore was advanced to assessee, out of which Rs.15 lakh was repaid - Therefore, an amount of Rs.1.45 crore remained outstanding to be paid to 'IA' - Balance loan amount was repaid by assessee in immediately next financial year - Whether when Department had accepted same, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]” 5.5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 wherein it was held as follows:

“Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bogus loan) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee received loans from two parties - Assessing officer treated same to be sham for reason that creditworthiness of loan givers was not established and, accordingly, made addition under section 68 - It was noted that Tribunal recorded findings of facts that assessee had furnished details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income-tax returns, balance sheet etc. of loan givers - It was also recorded that notice under section 133(6) was issued to said loan givers which were duly responded by them, therefore, identity of parties could not be disputed - It was also noticed that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid by assessee in subsequent year - Whether, on facts, identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transactions were well established, therefore, impugned addition made under section 68 on account of said loan amount was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 3.4, 3.5 and 5] [In favour of assessee]”

5.6. Since the assessee has sufficiently discharged the initial onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Act, we do not find any infirmity in the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2.58 crores made by the A.O. Thus Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 17 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

Assessee’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 19/Ahd/2025

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 18 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

section 153A of the Act. Recording the same, Ground No. 1 & 2 are hereby dismissed.

1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,45,95,465/- out of the total addition of Rs.32,80,44,711/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income tax Act without considering the facts as mentioned in the remand report and assessment order that lenders who have provided the unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.16,45,95,465/- to the assessee have failed to prove their creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. 2) "The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the parties lies with the assessee, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the creditworthiness of the creditors during the remand proceedings as well assessment proceedings."

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 19 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

3) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,86,60,634/- made u/s.68 & 69C without considering the remand report and seized data in the form of Diaries. 4) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.4,75,05,860/- u/s 36(1)(iii) despite the assessee was paying interest @ of 12% p.a. on the loans availed, 5) The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal."

Sr. Name of Amount (₹) Identity Creditworthiness Genuineness No. Lender Proof 1 Hasmukh 29,08,000 ITR Bank statement Ledger, Jadav Confirmation, Bank 2 Headfirst 91,02,699 PAN, ITR Financials Ledger, Vintrade Confirmation, Bank 3 Infinium 10,00,00,000 PAN Audited Ledger, Natural Financials Confirmation, Resources Bank 4 Jadav 30,00,000 ITR - Ledger, Ramaben Confirmation,

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 20 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

Bank 5 Jagruti A 11,00,000 PAN, ITR Bank statement Ledger, Rathi Confirmation, Bank 6 Mayurika 20,00,000 ITR Computation Ledger, Reshamwala Confirmation, Bank 7 Nirav R Patel 1,50,00,000 ITR Source Ledger, explained Confirmation, Bank 8 Sankalp Ind 20,00,000 PAN Financials Ledger, Co-Op Confirmation,

Bank 9 Sankalp 10,000 - - Ledger, International Confirmation, Pvt Ltd Bank 10 Sweta Gupta 1,20,13,000 ITR Capital Account Ledger, Confirmation, Bank 11 Taraben H 50,00,000 ITR Source Ledger, Thakkar explained Confirmation, Bank 12 Aavkar 5,54,074 ITR Audit + Ledger, Corporation Financials Confirmation, Bank 13 Pradip C Patel 1,53,15,692 ITR Financials + Ledger, Audit Confirmation, Bank 14 Narayani 4,00,53,183 ITR - Ledger, Enterprise Confirmation, Bank 15 RK Enterprise 2,82,18,724 ITR - Ledger, Confirmation,

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 21 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

14.1. From the aforesaid details, it is observed that the assessee has furnished, in respect of each of the creditors, the ledger accounts, confirmations, copies of income tax returns, financial statements and bank statements. Thus, the identity of the creditors stands duly established. Further, the creditworthiness of the creditors is supported by their respective financial statements and bank accounts reflecting availability of sufficient funds at the time of advancing the loans. In certain cases, the source of funds has also been explained by the creditors. As regards the genuineness of the transactions, it is noted that all the loan transactions have been carried out through normal banking channels and are duly recorded in the books of account of both the assessee and the lenders. There is no material brought on record to suggest that the transactions are non-genuine or represent accommodation entries.

14.2. The Assessing Officer has made the addition primarily on the basis of suspicion and without bringing any cogent material on record to controvert the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. It is a settled position of law that once the assessee discharges the initial onus cast upon it under section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, the burden shifts upon the Revenue to disprove the same. However, the Revenue could not contravent the above findings of Ld. CIT(A) with relevant materials in support of its Ground Nos.1 & 2. In the absence of same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 22 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

15.1. With regard to unsecured loan received from RK Enterprises, Prop. Rashmin K Vakta HUF. Ld. CIT(A) held that perusal of ledger account and confirmation submitted by the assessee, the said loan have been squared up by the assessee in the very same financial year 2018-19 itself. Further the Ld A.O. has not found any infirmity in the said repayment of loan by the assessee, therefore following the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, deleted the addition of Rs.2,82,18,724/-. This factual finding arrived by Ld. CIT(A) does not require any

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 23 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

interference in the absence of any contra material filed by the Revenue before us. Therefore Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 16. Regarding Ground No.4 deletion of the interest expenses of Rs.4,75,05,860/- under section 36[1][iii] of the Act despite the assessee was paying interest @ 12% p.a. on the loans availed. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order observed that the assessee has incurred excess interest expenses over interest income earned by the assessee which is to be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act and made an addition of Rs.5,26,61,241/-.

“….7.2. The AO ignoring the submission of the appellant proceeded to make interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the hands of the appellant at Rs.5,26,61,241/-, which is even more than the interest expenses claimed by the appellant. The AO has also made separate disallowance on account of interest u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.8,04,642/. The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings well demonstrated that the appellant had taken interest free loans and has also interest free funds, which are summarised as under:

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 24 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

7.3 Further, the appellant has worked out the disallowance without prejudice to its claim that since the conditions of sec 36(1) (iii) of the Act are met in its case, no disallowance should be made. I have perused the said contention but do not find merits in the said arguments as it can be observed that the appellant has diverted interest bearing loans to interest free advances. Accordingly, the disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act in case of the appellant at Rs. 51,55,381/- is worked out as under:

7.4 Accordingly, the addition of Rs.51,55,381/- on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) is hereby confirmed and the

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 25 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

balance disallowance of Rs.4,75,05,860/- is deleted. The Ground No. 3 of Appeal is partly allowed. “

17.1. The Revenue could not pin point any mistake in the interest disallowance working made by Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

ITA No. 495/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2019-20

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 26 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

19.1 Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not pressing Ground No. 1 challenging the jurisdiction of assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. Recording the same, Ground No. 1 is hereby dismissed.

I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 & 37/Ahd/2025 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 27 Dimple Robin Goenka vs. ACIT

was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. Hence Ground No. 5 is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24-04-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy Ahmedabad : Dated 24/04/2026 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