DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2013-14
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.
1,75,00,000/
1961 by the assessee fro entry provide
2. On the fa
Ld.CIT(A) err as unexplain in respect of 3. On the fa
Ld.CIT(A) err
(Rs. 38,86,1
interest expe
2. Briefly stated, f individual and propr business of construc income on 28.09.20
The return of income and statutory notices
Act’) were issued and the Act was complet
Rs.2,96,94,882/- by for unsecured loan o credit u/s 68 of t accommodation en
Rs.5,25,000/- for obt unexplained expendi
Rs.48,48,355/- in re
Satyendra
ITA No /- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68
e AO in respect of unsecured loans om Bhanwarlal Jain who is an ac er.
acts and circumstances of the case an red in deleting the addition made of ned expenditure u/s.69C of the I.T.Ac f commission paid on the said loans.
acts and circumstances of the case an red in deleting the addition made of R
191/- + Rs. 9,62,164/-) by the AO enses on the said loans.
facts of the case are that the rietor of M/s Peerless Construct cting buildings. The assessee fil
013 declaring total income of e filed by the assessee was selec s under the Income-tax Act, 196
d complied with. The assessmen ed on 26.02.2016 determining way of making three additions, of Rs.1,75,00,000/- held as un the Act, secondly, the loans try and therefore, commis taining such accommodation en ture u/s 69C of the Act, thirdly spect of current year loan held a Kumar Triloknath
Goyal
2
o. 1113/MUM/2025
8 of the I.T.Act, taken by the ccommodation nd in law, the Rs.5,25,000/- ct, 1961 by AO nd in law, the Rs.48,48,355/- on account of assessee is an tion, engaged in ed his return of Rs.67,11,530/-.
cted for scrutiny
61 (in short ‘the nt u/s 143(3) of total income at firstly, addition nexplained cash were held as ssion paid of ntry was held as y, the interest of as unexplained as well as brought fo was treated as unexp
3. On further appe on the decision of the of the assessee for Revenue is in appe reproduced above.
4. We have heard the relevant materia allegation are that a the unsecured loans
Shri Bhawarlal Jain, the course of assessm notice u/s 133(6) of assessee received loa given to the assessee
The assessee also fil that loans were repai deducted on the inter that in the additions
Officer on similar alle of accommodation e ordinate Bench of th
Satyendra
ITA No orward loans which were held a plained expenditure u/s 69C of t eal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the a e Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribu r assessment year 2012-13. eal before us, by way of raisi rival submissions of the parti als on record. In the case o assessee had received accommo s from the entities controlled a i.e. an accommodation entry p ment proceedings, the Assessin f the Act to all such parties f ans. In response, those parties e and also filed copy of their ba led his bank statement and fu id through account payee chequ rest payment regularly. The Ld.
s were made in earlier year by egation of the receipt of unsecu entry from the Bhawarlal Jai he Tribunal after verification of a Kumar Triloknath
Goyal
3
o. 1113/MUM/2025
as unexplained, the Act.
additions relying unal in the case
Aggrieved, the ing grounds as ies and perused of the assessee odation entry of and operated by provider. During ng Officer issued from whom, the confirmed loan ank statements.
urther explained ues and tax was CIT(A) observed y the Assessing red loan by way in but the Co- f documents of identity, confirmatio discharged his onus finding of the Co-o
5562/Mum/2017 for under:
“7. We have relevant mat are given be In the case o
DR, it is he assessee's i various part any of those huge sums collateral se agreement, i
In the case o by the Ld.
representativ summons h behalf of an only received doubt abou
Thereafter, conducted creditworthin examine the were made these Comp basis of the Assessment to prove the companies a As mentione of the AO
Satyendra
ITA No on, bank statements etc held s of burden u/s 68 of the Ac ordinate Bench of the Tribun r assessment year 2012-13 is heard the rival submissions and peru terial on record. The reasons for our d low.
of Bikram Singh (supra), relied on by eld that "where the AO made add ncome u/s 68 in respect of loan tak ties, since the assessee failed to pro e creditors had financial strength to le of money to assessee, that too with ecurity, without interest and without impugned addition deserves to be conf of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra), r
DR, the AO had issued summons ves of the investor companies. Desp having been served, nobody appea y of the investor companies. The Dep d submissions through dak, which cr ut the identity of the investor com the AO independently got field e with respect to the identity ness of the investor companies e genuineness of the transaction. E at Mumbai, Kolkata and Guwahati panies were stated to be situated.
e detailed enquiries conducted, the A Year: 2012-13 that the assessee ha e existence of the identity of the and genuineness of the transaction.
ed earlier, in the instant case the enti was on the modus operandi adop a Kumar Triloknath
Goyal
4
o. 1113/MUM/2025
d that assessee ct. The relevant nal in ITA No.
reproduced as used the decisions y the Ld.
dition to ken from ove that nd such hout any t a loan firmed".
relied on s to the pite the ared on partment reated a mpanies.
nquiries y and and to Enquiries i, where
On the AO held ad failed investor ire focus pted by Bhanwarlal accommodat
AO for mak information
Department.
by the AO a (supra). In th was unable and genuine
As recorded assessment
AO (i) loan lenders, (iii) advanced th
(v) copy of b balance shee
Therefore, th above case l
7.1 It is wel u/s 68, the a (i) the identit
(ii) the capa
Assessment
(iii) the genu
After the as prima facie department.
to the depar enquiry to rej
In view of th we uphold th
8. In the resu
Satyendra
ITA No Jain Group of cases to provide tion entries of loan. The main reason king addition u/s 68 was on the b provided by the Investigation Wing
No independent enquiry has been co as was done in NRA Iron & Steel P he case of Bikram Singh (supra), the a e to establish the identity, creditwo eness of the said persons and transact d by the Ld. CIT (A), during the co proceedings, the assessee filed bef confirmations from lenders, (ii) PAN copy of the return of income of lende he loan, (iv) copy of bank account of bank account of the assessee and (vi) et and P & L account of the lenders.
he instant case is distinguishable f laws relied on by the Ld. DR.
ll settled that in order to discharge th assessee must prove the following:
ty of the creditor, acity of the creditor to advance mon
Year: 2012-13
ineness of the transaction.
ssessee has adduced evidence to e e the aforesaid, the onus shifts
In the instant case, though the onus rtment, the AO has failed to make ne eject the contentions of the assessee.
he above factual matrix and position he order of the Ld. CIT (A).
ult, appeal filed by the revenue is dism a Kumar Triloknath
Goyal
5
o. 1113/MUM/2025
e bogus n of the basis of g of the nducted
Pvt. Ltd.
assessee rthiness tions.
ourse of fore the N of the ers, who lenders copy of from the he onus ney; and establish to the s shifted ecessary n of law, missed.”
1 We find that t relied on the followin 1 IT Ja 2. IT In 3. IT 16 Ci 4. IT Di 5. IT Ki 6. IT vs 7. IT vs 4.2 Before documen year had been filed. been taken , the u Diamonds’ and ‘Nauk parties for assessme favour of the assess identical documents the discharging of on the Ld. CIT(A) on the Satyendra ITA No the Co-ordinate Bench(supra) g decision of the Co-ordinate Be TANo. 6099/Mum/2016 DCIT (CC)-l(3)vs. M/s ainam Investments TANo. 1414/Mum/2017 DCIT 25(1) vs. M/s YRV nternational TA No. 2100/Mum/2016 and ITANo. 645/Mum/2017 Shri Ashok Nagraj Mehta vs. ACI ircle 19(1) TANo. 7049/Mum/2016 Asst CIT-19(1) vs. Shri ilip Chimanlal Gandhi TA No. 7049 & 7050/Mum/2016 Jitendra M itawat vs. ITO 18(1X5) TANo. 7047/Mum/2016 Jitendra M Kitawat (HUF s. ITO 18(1)(5) TA No. 3017/Mum/2018 Smt. Ritu Kamal Singal s. ITO 21(3114) nts identical to which had been Out of the list of parties from w unsecured loan giver parties n kar India’ are also appearing in ent year 2012-13 which has b see by the Co-ordinate Bench have been filed in respect of p nus u/s 68 of the Act, we uphol e issue in dispute in respect of a Kumar Triloknath Goyal 6 o. 1113/MUM/2025 while deciding ench : IT F) n filed in earlier whom loans have namely ‘Naukar n the list of the been allowed in h (supra). Since parties to justify ld the finding of f addition of the unsecured loan. The dismissed. 4.2 As far as addit same is in respect o cash credits, which have upheld said d appeal, therefore, respect of those ent appeal is dismssed. 4.3 In respect of gr has given list of the year as well as the where the loan has against which no a interest payment is re SR. NO. NAME, ADDRESS A PAN OF THE LOA CREDITORS 1 Navkar India 2 Rajan Diamonds 3 Mohit Enterprises Satyendra ITA No ebground No. 1 of the appeal tion of the commission expense of unsecured loans considered have already deleted by the ld deletion while adjudicating gr consequent addition for the ries is also deleted. The groun round No. 3, the Ld. Counsel f e interest in respect of parties brought forward and in remar been allowed by the ITAT or appeal is pending. The relevan eproduced as under: AND AN INTEREST (Incl. TDS) TDS Rs. 218,137 Rs. 21,819 Loan AY 1 1,344,000 134,400 Loan AY 2 AY 1 120,000 12,000 Loan AY 1 a Kumar Triloknath Goyal 7 o. 1113/MUM/2025 l of Revenue is es is concerned as unexplained d CIT(A) and we round no. 1 of commission in nd No. 2 of the for the assessee for the current rk column given the Ld. CIT(A) nt detail of the Remarks n allowed in appeal 12-13 by ITAT n allowed by CIT(A) in 2009-10 and ITAT in 12-13 n allowed in Appeal 12-13 by ITAT
4
Mukti Exports
5. Pushpak Gems
S
Navkar Diamond
7
Mehul Gems Pvt Ltd
8
Daksh Diamonds
9
Jewel Diam
10
Kothari & Co.
11
Minal Gems
12
Rose Impex
Total interest disallow
4.3 Since the loans been allowed either b
CIT(A) and no appea
CIT(A), therefore, the stands allowed. We u dispute. The grou accordingly dismissed
Satyendra
ITA No 120,000
12,000
Loan
AY 1
360,000
36,000
Loan
AY 1
380,054
38,005
Loan
AY 1
d
120,000
12,000
Loan
AY 1
324,000
32,400
Loan in AY in AY
120,000
12,000
Loan in AY i
120,000
12,000
Loan in AY
360,000
36,000
Loan in AY in AY
300,000
30,000
Loan in AY in AY wed 3,886,191
388,624
corresponding to the interest p by the Co-ordinate Bench of the al has been preferred against e interest paid in respect of th uphold the finding of ld CIT(A) nd No. 3 of the appeal of t d.
a Kumar Triloknath
Goyal
8
o. 1113/MUM/2025
n allowed in Appeal
12-13 by ITAT n allowed in Appeal
12-13 by ITAT n allowed in Appeal
12-13 by ITAT n allowed in Appeal
12-13 by ITAT n allowed by CIT (A)
Y 2009-10 and ITAT
Y 12-13
n allowed by CIT (A)
Y 2009-10 and ITAT n allowed by CIT (A)
Y 2009-10 and ITAT n allowed by CIT (A)
Y 2009-10 and ITAT
Y 12-13
n allowed by CIT (A)
Y 2009-10 and ITAT
Y 12-13
paid has already e ITAT or the Ld.
said finding of hose loans also on the issue in the Revenue is 5. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 31/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Satyendra
ITA No he appeal of the Revenue is dism ced in the open Court on 31/0
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu a Kumar Triloknath
Goyal
9
o. 1113/MUM/2025
missed.
07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai