MONEY ASSURANCE SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(3)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.1. The order passed u/s. 250 on 21.11.2024 for A.Y.2014-15 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.7,71,62,620 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences 2.1 The Ld CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the reopening u/s 147 of the Act. 2.2 That in the facts and/or in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the reopening u/s 147 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.3,91,48,620/- being unexplained cash credits and deposits u/s 69A 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.3,91,48,620/- being unexplained cash credits and deposits u/s 69A 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition without appreciating that these were regular business transactions through banking channels. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.1,44,64,000/- as interest income under Income from Other Sources

4.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 1,44,64,000/- as interest income when the source and nature was explained 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.2,35,50,000 as accommodation entries. 5.2 That the Ld CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition when no specific evidence was brought on record regarding nature of these entries. 6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the invocation of Section 115BBE without any satisfaction being recorded 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that mechanical application of Section 115BBE without speaking order is not permissible in law. 7.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that under Section 144B(1) (iv), the AO is required to serve a draft assessment order in case he was of the contrary view to the appellant assessee. 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the AO ought to have issued draft assessment order u/s 144B of the Act before passing final assessment order. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Piramal Enterprises Limited vs PCIT wherein it was held that compliance with Section 144B procedure is not merely directory but mandatory in nature. 8.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard conferencing via video 8.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory in the new regime of Faceless appeal process. 8.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via videoconferencing. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Ld. AO and upheld by the CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice and considering the eccentric facts of the case.

Sr. No. Amount

7,71,62,620/- Total It is found that the assessee had another bank accounts with Yes Bank Limited and IndudInd Bank, the details of which were not received in spite of issue of notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act by the AO. Nevertheless, we still Money Assurance Services Vs. ITO, AY- 2014-15 6 find possibility of duplication in the various additions as made by the AO. The interest income of Rs.1,44,64,000/- as well as the accommodation entry of Rs. 2,35,50,000/- was received through bank accounts only. Thus, when the AO had made additions for accommodation entry and interest income along with separate addition for all the credit entries in the HDFC bank accounts, chances of duplication cannot be ruled out. The AO should have excluded the interest income and accommodation entry credited to the HDFC bank account and thereafter considered only the balance amount for making the addition for credit entries in the account. Further, the addition of the entire credit entries appearing in the bank account without considering the debit entries, also cannot be justified. In view of these facts, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the duplicate additions on account of accommodation entry and interest income vis-à-vis the credit entries appearing in the bank accounts. The AO will be free to obtain the bank statement of other two accounts of the assessee for this purpose. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 07/04/2026 at Ahmedabad.