DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5773/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing sufficient evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Ld. Commissioner, concluding that it did not suffer from any perversity, impropriety, or illegality.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 11,00,000/- to the assessee's income under Section 68, treating it as bogus accommodation entries. The assessee provided documentary evidence including ledger confirmation, bank statements, financials of the lender (M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd.), and a confirmation from M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. admitting the transaction and proving repayment in the subsequent year.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee had discharged the onus by providing evidence for the genuineness of the unsecured loan.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 133(6),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhat, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Hearing: 09.04.2025Pronounced: 28.04.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue Department against the order dated 11.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of statement of Shri Rajesh G. Mehta, who allegedly controlled the entity M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd., treated the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- as no- genuine and bogus accommodation entries, whereas it is a fact that the Assessee had not only furnished the ledger confirmation, bank statement, copy of return of income and financials of M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. but also established that the entire sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was repaid in the very next year. The Assessee also furnished the confirmation made by M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. dated 19.02.2022, in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the AO, whereby M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd. had clearly admitted said transaction of Rs.11,00,000/- and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner by considering all the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, specifically the documents filed by the Assessee and the confirmation by M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd., ultimately held that the Assessee has discharged his onus and consequently deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, on account of unsecured loan.

3.

This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and found the impugned order deleting the addition under consideration, is not only based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case but also does not suffer from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality. Thus, the impugned order is affirmed.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →