INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA JAIN, MUMBAI

"On the fa Hon'ble ITAT tax effect is b Circular No. 9 the exceptions Circular No.5/ 2. Briefly stated, originally filed her re income of ₹1,92,47 section 143(1) of the as ‘the Act’). Subs Assessing Officer tha entry by way of ₹11,50,000/- from M and operated by the subjected to search Department, Mumba Assessing Officer r chargeable to tax ha notice under section 2.1 In response the income originally file with notice issued statutory notices wer course of proceedin advanced certain su ITA acts and in the circumstances of the c is requested to entertain this appeal, th below the monetary limit prescribed in th 9/2024 Dt. 17.09.2024 but the case fall s laid out in clause (h) of Para 3.1 of the /2024 Dt. 15.03.2024." the facts of the case are tha turn of income on 31.03.2011 d 0/-. The said return was pr e Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereina sequently, information was re at the assessee had obtained a bogus loan transaction M/s Rajan Gems, an entity alle e ‘Shri Gautam Jain Group’, w by the Investigation Wing of ai. On the basis of such in recorded reasons to believe ad escaped assessment and acc 148 of the Act on 29.03.2017. reto, the assessee submitted th d may be treated as return filed under section 148 of the A re issued and served upon the a ngs, the assessee submitted ums to M/s Rajan Gems in th Sangeeta Jain 2 A No. 1972/MUM/2025 case, the ough the he CBDT ls within e Board's at the assessee declaring a total rocessed under after referred to eceived by the accommodation amounting to gedly controlled which had been the Income-tax nformation, the e that income cordingly issued hat the return of d in compliance Act. Thereafter, assessee. In the that she had he earlier year, which were repaid in Assessing Officer did assessee on the grou Investigation Wing es accommodation entry adduce any cogent advanced in the prec represented repayme made an addition of ₹ section 68 of the Act. 2.2 On further appe observing as under: “6. Discussio appellant an assessment o that the notic that certain e facts engaged assessee has one of such e Akshay Sing under consid amount was r However, the finding of in involved in pr 11,50,000/- w The appellant that the loan 10 and subm the loan wa 29.04.2008, R ITA n the year under consideration d not accept the explanation fu unds that (i) the information re stablished that M/s Rajan Gems y provider, and (ii) the assesse evidence that the alleged l ceding year and that the impug ent thereof. Consequently, the A ₹11,50,000/- as unexplained ca eal however, the Ld. CIT(A) dele on and decision- The submissions d the reason of addition as mentione order are carefully examined. The fact o ce u/s 148 was issued on the basis of in entities in the business of diamond trad d in bogus billing/ accommodation en s received unsecured loan of Rs. 11,50,0 entity namely Rajan Gems (Proprietor Dh h Babel) for Rs. 11,50,000/- during t deration. The assessee explained to AO repayment of loan advanced in the prece e AO did not accept the explanation in nvestigation wing that M/s Rajan G roviding accommodation entries. The amo was added u/s 68 to the income of asses t during the course of appeal proceeding was advanced to M/s Rajan Gems in the mitted bank statement of FY 2008-09 as p as advance on 24.04.2008, Rs. 4,50,0 Rs. 7,00,000/-through banking channel. Sangeeta Jain 3 A No. 1972/MUM/2025 n. However, the urnished by the eceived from the s was merely an ee had failed to loan had been gned transaction Assessing Officer ash credit under ted the addition made by ed in the of case is nformation ding are in ntries. The 000/- from harmendra the period O that the ding year. n view of Gems was ount of Rs. ssee. submitted e FY 2009- per which 000/- and The said loan was rec channel and t The addition credit withou submitted by which is givi business car brought anyth given by app of the same l date of searc The addition appellant is are not cons 3. When the matte behalf of the assess there any request fo hearing, none had a appeared that the as appeal. Accordingly, assessee. 4. We have heard Representative (DR) We find that the lear on the basis that th Gems in financial ye the year under cons bank statements b admittedly not produ CIT(A), while relying ITA ceived bank in the FY 2009-10 through the evidence of same submitted. had been made by AO on account of un ut going into merit of explanation and y appellant on the basis of investigati ing the general observation and findin rried out by M/s Rajan Gems The AO hing on record to show that the earlier ellant was not genuine. Therefore, the r loan in the next year and which is also ch on M/s Rajan Gems group can not b is therefore deleted. The main relief s s allowed hence other grounds of sidered.” er was taken up before us, no see despite due service of notic or adjournment. Even on the attended on behalf of the asses ssessee was not interested in , the matter was heard ex the submissions of the learne and perused the material avail rned CIT(A) has deleted the ad he assessee had advanced loan ear 2008-09 and had received it sideration, for which she furnis before him. However, such e uced before the Assessing Offic on such fresh evidence, has n Sangeeta Jain 4 A No. 1972/MUM/2025 h banking nexplained d evidence ion report ng on the O has not year loan repayment before the be upheld. sought by of appeal ne appeared on ce. Neither was earlier date of see. It therefore prosecuting the parte qua the d Departmental lable on record. ddition primarily n to M/s Rajan ts repayment in shed supporting evidences were cer. The learned not followed the procedure prescribed (‘the Rules’) and has Officer to examine th 4.1 In the circumst the matter to the file with the provisions o from the Assessing afresh in accordance are allowed for statist 5. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 22/08/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.