SHRADHA DHAWAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-58(3), DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 14.10.2024, for assessment year 2017-18.

Shri K. Sampath appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that he is not pressing ground no. 1 of appeal assailing proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the solitary addition made by Assessing Officer (AO) is with regard to alleged accommodation entries amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. during the period (AY 2017-18) relevant to assessment year under appeal. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee is a fashion designer and had started her business in September 2016. For initializing the business she required capital therefore she borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. on 11.11.2016. The said company is engaged in manufacturing of readymade garments. When the assessee started her business she was unmarried, after marriage in May 2017 she discontinued the business. Subsequently, in September 2019 the entire borrowings from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. were repaid by the assessee in three installments as under:- Date Amount of repayment 11.09.2019 10,00,000/- 16.09.2016 10,00,000/- 25.09.2019 15,00,000/- 4. The amount was received by the assessee from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. through banking transactions. In support of his submissions, the ld. Counsel placed on record bank statement of the assessee at page no. 7 of the paper book. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to the confirmation from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. at page no. 11 of the paper book. He submitted that the loan was repaid through banking transaction. The HDFC Bank statement and the confirmations of the loan were submitted before the AO. However, the AO without appreciating the facts and documents on record brushed aside the documents furnished by the assessee and made the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed addition without even examining the documents placed on record by the assessee.

Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

As regards ground no. 1 of appeal challenging validity of reopening of assessment, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made statement at Bar, that he is not pressing the same. In light of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, ground no. 1 is dismissed as not pressed.