KESHVI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,GOREGAON EAST vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI, BKC,BANDRA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the loan was initially taken through banking channels, and the repayment was also made through banking channels to a sister concern as directed by the original creditor. The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to prove the transaction.
What were the facts?
The assessee borrowed Rs. 40 lakhs from Shree Oshiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. through banking channels. The lender company was later struck off by MCA. The assessee repaid the loan to a sister concern of the original lender. The AO added the loan amount as unexplained, disallowing the repayment.
What were the issues?
Whether the repayment of a loan to a sister concern, after the original lender was struck off by MCA, can be accepted as a valid repayment under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assesse was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereinafter called, ‘Ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 14/12/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 21/04/2021.
2 ITA 640/Mum /2025 Keshvi Developers Pvt Ltd 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. The Ld. AR submitted a paper book comprising pages 1 to 20, which has been taken on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs from M/s Shree Oshiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. for business purposes, and the loan was received through the banking channel. However, during the relevant assessment year, the name of the said loan creditor was struck off by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), due to which the assessee was unable to repay the loan directly to the original lender. Subsequently, the assessee repaid the said loan amount to a sister concern of the loan creditor, namely, Shree Oshiya Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. AR contended that appropriate journal entries were passed in the books of account to reflect the said repayment. On examination of the assessment record, it is observed that the Ld. AO noted that the assessee had informed about the repayment made to a third party, although the original loan creditor had been struck off by the MCA. Therefore, the Ld. AO did not accept the repayment made to the sister concern and treated the same as unexplained, thereby making an addition of Rs. 40 lakhs under section 68 of the Act on the ground of failure to establish the identity & creditworthiness of the loan creditor.
The Ld. DR supported the findings of the revenue authorities and relied upon their orders. The relevant part of the observation of the Ld. AO is reproduced as below:- “4.2 The reply of the assessee has been perused but not found tenable. Before issuing show cause notice the assessee did not accept any transaction with the company of which registration has 3 ITA 640/Mum /2025 Keshvi Developers Pvt Ltd been struck off by the MCA and accepted the transaction after issuing show cause notice. Further, the assessee company has failed to submit any documentary evidences which can prove the creditworthiness of the lender company. In view of above narrated facts it is evident that the assessee company has failed to prove genuineness of transaction which was done a company whose registration has been cancelled.”
Upon careful consideration, we observe that although the loan creditor was struck off by an order of the MCA, the assessee subsequently repaid the loan amount to its sister concern. It is not in dispute that the loan was initially taken from a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, and the transaction was routed through the banking channel. The evidence of repayment was placed before the Ld. AO but was not accepted. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee’s submissions and upheld the addition. We find that the reasonable opportunity of the assessee is denied, and the assessee has in fact repaid the loan and reduced its liability. It was also claimed that the repayment was made as per the direction of the original loan creditor to its sister concern. Since the entire transaction, including the repayment, was conducted through banking channels, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires proper verification, and the assessee should be allowed one more opportunity to establish the transaction with loan creditor. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional AO (JAO) for the limited purpose of verifying the repayment made to the sister concern of the loan creditor and verification of the loan transaction. Both the Ld. DR and the Ld. AR have fairly accepted the observations of the Bench. Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set- aside proceedings.
4 ITA 640/Mum /2025 Keshvi Developers Pvt Ltd 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026