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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आअसं.5204/िदʟी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18)
Shradha Dhawan,
84, Ram Vihar, Delhi 110092
PAN: BJEPG-9626-A ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3)
Vikas Bhawan, Delhi 110002

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri K. Sampath & Harshit Chauhan, Advocates
Ůितवादी Ȫारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
16/01/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
15/04/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

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. 2. 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’).
3. 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

2
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

10,00,000/-

10,00,000/-

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

3
6. Both sides heard. The solitary issue assailed in appeal by the assessee is the addition of Rs.35,00,000/- made u/s. 69A of the Act, on account of alleged bogus entries received by the assessee from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. The assessee is stated to be a fashion designer. For starting her business during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal she allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing readymade garments. The assessee has placed on record bank statement from HDFC Bank Ltd. Delhi Manak Vihar Branch to show credit of Rs. 35,00,000/- on 18.11.2016 in the bank of the assessee. The said company has also confirmed advancing of Rs. 35,00,000/- as interest free unsecured loan to the assessee. The said confirmation is at page no. 11 of the paper book. It is further contended that the assessee has repaid the entire loan in September 2019 in three installments, two installments of Rs.10,00,000/- each and one installment of Rs.15,00,000/- through banking transaction. To substantiate, the assessee has placed on record statement of assessee's bank account with HDFC Bank Ltd, Manak Vihar Branch,
Delhi at page no. 9 and 10 of the paper book. I find merit in the submissions of the assessee which are duly substantiated with the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. Hence, addition of Rs.35,00,000/- made u/s. 69A of the Act is deleted and ground no. 2 of appeal is allowed.
7. 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.

4
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 15th day of April, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 15.04.2025

NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Dy./Asstt.