ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S.V. EXPORTS, MUMBAI

Co. No. 40/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2008-09 S.V. Exports आदेश / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN [J.M.]:- This appeal is filed by the revenue, against which the assessee has filed the cross-objections, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-51[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 18.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2008-09.

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 30,52,095/- made u/s 68 of the income-Tax Act, on account of interest expenditure on unsecured loans received from entities operated by Shri. Bhawarlal Jain & its Groups in the previous assessment Year i.e, 2007-08 7" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in directing the AD to delete the addition of Rs. 30,52,095/-made on account of interest expenditure on unsecured loans received from five entities without considering the fact that the action of the AO μας based on the discreet report of DGT(inv), Mumbai post search operations conducted on Shn, Bhawarlal Jain & its syndicates, wherein it was established that all these paper companies with no real business activities, operating solely with purpose of facilitation of fraudulent financial transactions which includes providing accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans, issuing of bogus sales bills etc and the assessee one of such entities, who has availed such accommodation entries of unsecured loans from five entities ?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 30,52,095/- made u/s 68 of the Income-Tax Act, on account of interest expenditure on unsecured loan received from five entities operated and controlled by Shri Bhawarlal Jain & its syndicates, without considering the findings that the three tests of identity, capacity and genuineness are unreliable in view of the fact that these parties are found to be non-genuine involved in shame transaction, as a consequence of Search action conducted by the Income-Tax Department ?"

Co. No. 40/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2008-09 S.V. Exports 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in considering that as a consequence of Search findings, Shri Bhawarlal Jain & his syndicates/paper entities were established to be non- genuine parties and any subsequent ratification of transaction does not convert a non-genuine transaction into a genuine one ?"

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating and considering that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have not been satisfied.

2. The Respondent craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another.”

4. At the outset, it has been brought to my notice that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT.

5. As per the facts of the present case, the AO made additions of Rs. 30,52,095/- on account of interest payment made during the instant year for Co. No. 40/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2008-09 S.V. Exports loans taken in the earlier year from different entities belonging to Bhawarlal Jain Group.

6. However, the appeal order for AY 2007-08, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions of unsecured loans, and the said order was upheld by the coordinate bench of ITAT in 691, & 692/Mum/2025 dated 19.05.2025. Therefore, additions made towards the interest payment on these loans were also consequently deleted.

7. After hearing both parties, I notice that since the coordinate bench has deleted the additions on account of interest payment for AYs 2009-10 and 2010- 11, while following the decision of the coordinate bench, I also upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.