INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1352/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19
C-6, Vashisht Marg, Hamuman
Nagar Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAOFG4799C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 10/07/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of present appeal, the Revenue challenges the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, [ for short
CIT(A)] dated 17.09.2024. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2018-19. Ld. CIT(A) passed that the order because the assessee challenged the order of assessment of income upon him passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short “Act”) dated 21.04.2021 passed by National e-
Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO] before him.
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
2

Issues i.

Income from Real Estate Business ii.

Business Loss
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
3
3.1 The assessee filed its return of income on 09.01.2019
declaring Nil Income. The assessee declared current year loss of Rs.3,902/-. The return was processed on 29/09/2019 and Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was also issued. Statutory notices as required were issued from time to time and served upon the assessee. In response to said notices, the assessee filed details through e-proceedings.
Record shows that the assessee engaged in the business of purchase of land and construction of flats and LLP's ongoing residential project named Symphonia in Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-
302021. During the year, the assessee has declared business loss.
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was requested to explain /furnish its explanation for the issue/reason on which the case has been selected for scrutiny. The reason for scrutiny was furnished to the assessee which reads as follows:

"Real estate business with high closing stock & Inflow of funds in an entity consistently showing loss before depreciation"

(i) Aventez Media Technology- The assessee has received loan of Rs.
40,00,000/-from this party during the year. However, it has not filed any loan confirmation, copy of return of income or financial statement or bank statement or any other details of this lender to prove identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction. The assessee has shown this loan as interest free.
(ii) Tarana Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has received loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from this party, however, it has not filed any loan confirmation, copy of return of income or financial statement or bank statement or any other details of this lender to prove identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction. The assessee has shown this loan as interest free
(iii) Yamini Investments Company Ltd. The assessee has received loan of Rs. 38,00,000/- from this company. In this regard the assessee filed copy of acknowledgement of return of income filed by the lender.
However, the assessee has failed to file loan confirmation, copy of return of income and financial statement and bank statement of this lender or any other details to prove the creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction. On verification of copy of acknowledgment it is noticed that the lender has offered total income for the year under consideration amounting to Rs.24,14,610/-.
Therefore, the unsecured loan given by the lender not commensurate with the return of income filed by it. The assessee has failed to give any other details to prove the creditworthiness of lender. It is also noticed that the assessee has claimed this loan as interest free; hence genuineness of the transaction is also not proved.
(iv) Premier Bars Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has taken received of Rs.1,25,00,000/-from this company and filed confirmation only from the party. However, it has not filed copy of return of income or other financial statement or bank statement of the lender. Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction is not proved. As claimed by the assessee, the loan is interest free.
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
6
(v) Premier Metcast Pvt. Ltd. - The assessee has taken received of Rs.
1,90,00,000/-from this company also and filed only confirmation from it.
However, it has not filed copy of return of income or financial statement or bank statement of this lender. Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction is not proved. As claimed by the assessee, the loan is interest free.
(vi) Shreeji Developers - The assessee has received loan of Rs.69,10,000/- from this lender and filed only confirmation from the party. However, it has not filed copy of return of income or any financial or bank statement of the lender. Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction is not proved. It is also noticed that the assessee paid interest of Rs.96,59,323/- to this lender. As the assessee has failed to justify the claim of loan transaction, the interest paid of Rs. 96,59,323/- to this lender also remained unproved.
(viii) Ankur Taneja The assessee has received loan of Rs 41,80,000/- from this lender, and filed confirmation from this party. However, it has not filed copy of return of income or financial statement or bank statement of the lender. Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction is not proved. The lender is one of the partners of this assessee LLP, even though, the assessee has failed to submit any such details. Therefore, the assessee failed to justify the claim of this loan. It is also noticed that the assessee paid interest of Rs.36,45,489/- to this lender. As the assessee has failed to justify the claim of loan, the interest paid to this lender also remained unproved.
(ix) Kanha Projects Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has received loan of Rs.70,00,000/-from this lender and filed only confirmation from it.
However, it has not filed copy of return of income or orther financial statement or bank statement of this company.
Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction not proved. As claimed by the assessee, the loan is interest free.
(x) MP RAWAT & CO. The assessee has taken received of Rs.
60,00,000/- from this lender. In support of its claim, the assessee submitted copy of acknowledgment of return filed by Shri Mahavir
Prasad Rawat as individual capacity, however, it has not filed any loan confirmation, copy of return of income or other financial statement or bank statement of the concerns to prove creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction. On verification of acknowledgment of return, it is noticed that the lender has earned total income of Rs.86,900/- during the year however, it has advanced huge loan of Rs.60,00,000/- to the assessee. Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction is not proved. The assessee claimed that loan of this lender has been squared off during the year. In support of its claim, the assessee submitted copy of its bank statement, highlighting the transaction. On verification of the same, it is noticed that the assessee has received loan of Rs.50,00,000/- on 24/08/2017
and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 19/02/2021 and returned amount of Rs.
10,00,000/- on 27/02/2027. No details of repayment of loan of Rs.50,00,000/- has been submitted by the assessee. Hence, the Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
7
assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of this lender and genuineness of loan transaction in respect of loan of Rs. 50,00,000/-, received on 24/08/2017. It is also noticed that the assessee paid interest of Rs 2.38.356/- to this lender. As the assessee has failed to justify the claim of loan, interest paid to this lender also remained unproved.
(xi) Goldendunes Construction Pvt Ltd.- The assessee has claimed to have received loan of Rs. 4,13,000/- from this party. In support of its claim, the assessee submitted copy of confirmation and acknowledgment of return filed by the lender company. On verification of the confirmation it is noticed that the assessee has received rent of Rs.4,13,000/- from this company. However, the assessee has claimed this transaction of rent as loan from the company. The assessee has not filed any details to prove that the transaction is in the nature of loan.
Further, on verification of return of income filed by the assessee it is noticed that the assessee has not offered any rent income for taxation.
As the assessee has failed to give correct nature of the amount received from this party and also failed to prove why rent income has been claimed as loan, the entire amount received form this party is remained to be explained. Hence it is clear that Rs.4,13,000/- received from this party is undisclosed credit in the books of account of assessee.

The assessee claimed that the reason for not submitting the required details is that the same were not received from these lenders. But, this claim of the assessee was not considered because the onus of proving credits of loans in the book of accounts, lies squarely on the assessee and such proof consists of proving the identity of the subscriber or lender, capacity of such lender or subscriber to make payment and also to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Considering that facts the unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 6,38,03,000/- was treated as Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
8
unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, and added back to the total income of the assessee.
3.3
As the loan received from the above parties remained unexplained, therefore, the interest of Rs.1,35,43,168/- related to this unexplained loan also remained unexplained, therefore, the same was also not considered as allowable. The assessee has debited these expenses in profit & loss account and capitalized the same under the head work in progress. The assessee has not claimed these expenses during the year under consideration and carried forwarded this interest expenses under the head work in progress to claim the same in subsequent year. Hence, the only effect that will be given in the assessee's case is that the interest expense to the extent to Rs. 1,35,43,168/- which has been credited in loan account and taken under the head "Work in progress' was also considered to be not allowable to the assessee for appropriation in future in any manner.
4. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After perusing the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:-
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
9
“5. Findings and Decision:
5.1 I have perused and considered the assessment order and the written submissions of appellant made from time to time.
5.2.1 Before deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant the issue of admissibility of additional evidences filed under rule 46A of IT Rules. 1962 to be decided. In the instant case the appellant has filed additional evidences vide its letter dated 11.02.2022. The said evidences are in the form of ITR, Bank statement and, ledger account from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2021 of all the 10 parties from whom loan of Rs.
6,38,03,000 was taken and interest of Rs. 1,35,43,000 was paid after deducting the TDS. Above evidences were in addition to the evidences like confirmations duly signed by authorized person and other details to prove the tenets of sec 68 of the Act like identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of transactions.
5.2.2 While explaining the reason for furnishing the additional evidences the appellant has submitted that Copy of ITR, Bank statement and other details could not be filed at the time of assessment proceedings for the reason that lenders were not cooperating in providing the documents.
1(1) Ahmedabad, ITA No 805/Ahd/2016 dated 16.10.2023 hon'ble ITAT
Ahmedabad, has taken the similar view while deciding the issue of additional evidence filed by the assessee.
5.2.5 Further, it is noticed that at the time of assessment proceedings the appellant had submitted before the AO that transactions with lenders were made 2-3 years back and currently there was no direct relation with the parties. However, they were trying to collect those details and would submit, once received. Moreover, it is noticed that the appellant had cooperated during the assessment proceedings and submitted all the details available to it which clearly suggest that the appellant has made genuine effort to collect that information. However, it could not collect the necessary details during the assessment proceedings and now submitted as additional evidence under rule 46A of I T Rules, 1962. Further, the said additional evidences are very crucial for fair disposal of appeal and in order to advance the cause of justice.
5.2.6 In view of abovementioned facts and circumstances the additional evidence submitted by the appellant is admitted and taken into account while disposing off the appeal. Decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Virgin Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd (2011) 332 ITR
396 (Delhi) and CIT vs Chandrakant Chanubhai Patel 202 taxmann 262
(delhi) are also relied upon in this regard.
5.3.1 Now comes to the merit of the case. Since all the grounds are interconnected the same are adjudicated together.
The main contention of AO is that the appellant could not prove the tenets of sec 68 of the Act in respect of loan taken from following 10
parties of Rs.6,38,03,000:-
S.NO.
Party Name
Amount
1
Aventez Media Technology
40,00,000.00
2
Tarana Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
10,00,000.00
3
Yamini Investments Company Ltd.
38,00,000.00
4
Premier Bars Pvt. Ltd.
1,25,00,000.00
5
Shreeji Developers
69,10,000.00
6
Ankur Taneja
41,80,000.00
7
Kanha Projects Pvt. Ltd.
70,00,000.00
8
MP Rawat & Co.
50,00,000.00
9
Premier Metacast Pvt. Ltd.
1,90,00,000.00
10
Golden Dunes Construction Pvt. Ltd.
4,13,000.00
Total
6,38,03,000.00
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
11
While treating the above loans as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act the AO has observed that 1) the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to prove the capacity of the loan creditor to advance such loan and the genuineness of these transactions entered into, 2) Most of the lenders are related parties and loan received is interest free. 3) Even though transactions are through banking channels, it does not prove that the lenders have capacity to pay such amount. 4) the assessee could not filed the confirmation from the creditors who had advanced huge amount of unsecured loans without any security.
5.3.2 With the above observations the AO has concluded that the loan received from 10 parties of Rs. 6,38,03,000 is not genuine and accordingly he has added the said amount as unexplained credit u/s 68
of the Act. Also, the AO has disallowed the interest of Rs. 1,35,43,168
paid on above loans and reduced the same from work in progress of Rs.
78,02,31,854. 5.3.3 The appellant, on the other hand, has submitted that it had filed confirmations of all the loans taken and also, filed ITR alongwith the bank statements of most of the creditors during the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 27.01.21, 01.02.21, 22.02.21 and 09.03.21. However the AO in the assessment order has wrongly mentioned that confirmation in respect of Aventez Media Technology, Tarana Advertising & Marketing
Pvt. Ltd., Yamini Investments Company Ltd. and MP RAWAT & CO. has not filed.
5.3.4 On perusal of the submission made the claim of the appellant was found to be correct to extent that in respect of all the 10 parties confirmations were filed during the course of assessment proceedings.
Further, the appellant had filed ITR of Parties found to be mentioned on sr. no. 3,6 and 10 of above chart, during the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, it is wrong on the part of AO to say that 'confirmation in respect of Aventez Media Technology, Tarana Advertising & Marketing
Pvt. Ltd., Yamini Investments Company Ltd. and M P RAWAT & CO. has not filed.
5.3.5 Further, the appellant has filed remaining details in the form of additional evidence vide its letter dated 11.02.2022 which includes ITRs of remaining parties, copy of bank statements and necessary explanation to prove the genuineness of transaction. Complete details in this regard along with necessary explanation have been tabulated in para 4.2. of the order.
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
12
On perusal of the above chart and necessary evidences attached along with party-wise analysis is as under:-
1. Loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- from Aventez Media Technology.
DE In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that during the year Aventez Media Technology has shown total income of Rs. 2,17,63,430 which proves the creditworthiness of the lender to provide loan to the appellant. Further, immediate source of the said loan is credit from MP Rawat of Rs. 52,00,000 via RTGS on 14.12.2018. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. It is also submitted that during the year no interest was charged but in subsequent year i.e. F.Y.18-19 interest was charged and TDS is also deducted on the same. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Tarana 'Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that during the year Tarana Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd has shown total income of Rs. 87,67,650 which proves the creditworthiness of the lender to provide loan to the appellant. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. Further, the loan was repaid on 05.12.2019. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 38,00,000/- from Yamini Investments Company Ltd.
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that immediate source of the said loan is credit from Jain Jewellers of Rs.
40,00,000 via RTGS on 23.03.2018. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. It is also submitted that during the year no interest was charged as loan was taken during the end of the year but in subsequent year i.e. F.Y.18-19 interest was charged and TDS is also deducted on the same. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from Premier Bars Pvt. Ltd.
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that during the year Premier Bars Pvt. Ltd has utilized overdraft limit and said loan
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
13
was provided out of that only. This fact proves the creditworthiness of the lender to provide loan to the appellant. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. It is also submitted that during the year no interest was charged but in subsequent year i.e. F.Y.18-19
interest was charged and TDS is also deducted on the same. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 69,10,000/- from Shreeji Developers
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that immediate source of the loan taken of Rs. 9,10,000 on 26.07.2017 is bank balance of Rs. 43,42,467 available on 26.07.2017. The immediate source of loan taken of Rs. 35,00,000 on 28.08.2017 credit from Narender Tayal and Krishan Mohan Sethi of Rs. 15,00,000 each and bank balance of Rs. 18,26,182 available on 28.08.2017. Further, immediate source of loan taken of Rs. 25,00,000 on 11.10.2017 is credit from Narender Tayal of Rs. 10,00,000 and bank balance of Rs.
29,56,151 available on 11.10.2017. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. Further, it was noticed that opening balance of loan taken from this party is 7,98,80,973. During the year the appellant repaid Rs. 2,21,00,000 and again taken loan of Rs.
69,10,100.Interest was also charged at Rs. 96,59,323 and TDS of Rs.
9,65,932 also deducted on the same. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 41,80,000 from Ankur Taneja
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that during the year Ankur Taneja has shown total income of Rs. 56,51,880 which proves the creditworthiness of the lender to provide loan to the appellant.
In addition to that the appellant has also explained the immediate source of loan taken. Further, it was noticed that opening balance of loan taken from this party is 2,04,99,471. During the year the appellant repaid Rs.
16,60,000 and again taken loan of Rs. 41,80, 100 Interest was also charged at Rs. 36,45,489 and TDS of Rs. 3,64,549 also deducted on the same All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 70,00,000 from Kanha Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
14
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that during the year Kanha Projects Pvt. Ltd. has shown total income of Rs. 1,17,879
and exempt income of Rs. 1,70,25,942 which proves the creditworthiness of the lender to provide loan to the appellant. Further, immediate source of the said loan is credit from Pinkcity Alliance of Rs. 1,75,00,000 on 01.03.2018. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. Entire loan was repaid in subsequent year i.e. F.Y.18-19
on 02.06.18 and 05.06.18. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs. 60,00,000 from M P Rawat and Company.
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that the immediate source of loan taken of Rs. 50,00,000 is credit from RMB
Media Ltd on 24.08.17 and Rs. 10,00,000 is bank balance of Rs.
11,21,662 on 15.02.18.Interest was also charged at Rs. 2,38,356 and TDS of Rs. 23,836 also deducted on the same. Further, it was noticed that out of total loan of Rs. 60,00,000 taken during the year Rs, 50,00,000 plus interest of Rs. 2,14,520 was repaid during the year itself on 13.02.2018. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan of Rs.1,90,00,000 from Premier Metcast pvt. Ltd.
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that during the year Premier Metcast Pvt. Ltd has utilized overdraft limit of Rs. 14.50
crores and said loan was provided out of that only. This fact proves the creditworthiness of the lender to provide loan to the appellant. All the transactions were carried out through banking channels only. It is also submitted that during the year no interest was charged but in subsequent year le. F.Y.18-19 interest was charged and TDS is also deducted on the same. Further, it was noticed that total loan of Rs. 1,90,00,000 taken during the year was repaid in subsequent year i.e. F.Y.2018-19 along with interest of Rs. 1,91,145.In view of the above, identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction are proved.
1. Loan taken from Goldendunes Construction Pvt. Ltd of 4,13,000
In this regard, the appellant has submitted Copy of confirmation, ITR and bank statement of lender. On perusal of the same it is noticed that the credit in account is not a loan but rent due on premise taken by it. Infact, during the year the appellant paid rent to Golden dunes Construction Pvt.
Ltd and also, deducted TDS on that.
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
15
In view of above discussion, it is concluded that the appellant has been able to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of transaction with supporting proof and necessary explanation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 6,38,03,000
u/s 68 by treating the loan received from 10 parties as non genuine and disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,35,43,168 on the above loans are deleted. Grounds of appeal is allowed accordingly.
6. In result, appeal is allowed.”
5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds five grounds as reiterated herein above. Ld. DR vehemently argued that the assessee has taken huge unsecured loans and the ld. AO added on those amount for the assessee could not produce the indemnity, genuineness and credit worthiness and thereby the ld. AO added those creditors. At the time of assessment, the assessee contended the details were not submitted as the same were not received from the unsecured creditors itself suggest the doubt about the existence of the loan creditors. The ld. CIT(A) vide para 5.2.3 noted that though the remand report was called for but since the same was not received after two reminder he proceeded to admit the additional evidence and thereby considering that evidence allowed the appeal of the assessee. So considering that aspect of the matter and considering the ground no. 4 raised by the revenue the matter be Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
16
remanded back to the ld. AO to examine the evidence so filed by the assessee.
6. Per contra, ld. AR of the assessee supported the findings recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A). He in furtherance to that also filed the following written submission:
“Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm incorporated under Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and engaged in the business of purchase of land and construction of flats and has filed
Return of income on 09.01.2019 declaring a loss of Rs. 3,902/-(APB
01-04). Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, ld.AO observed that assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 21,93,51,047/- from various parties and accordingly details were sought w.r.t. the same. Assessee furnished detailed submission alongwith supporting evidences, in the shape of ITR, Confirmation and Bank Statement of most of the parties. As, at the time of assessment proceedings, there was intermittent countrywide/statewide lockdown due to pandemic COVID 19 and due to which assessee (being in subdued position), though tried, yet could not insist the lenders to provide complete documentary evidences in support of loans taken from some of the parties. Ld. AO, after considering the submission of assessee, held that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of unsecured loan of Rs. 6,83,03,000/- received from 10 parties and thus made the addition of same u/s 68 of the Act.
Apart from this, interest of Rs. 1,38,03,000/- paid on unsecured loans was also disallowed. Since, interest was not debited to profit and loss account and value of work in progress was increased by the amount of interest, such Work in Progress was reduced from Rs. 78,02,31,854/- to Rs. 76,66,88,686/-.
Aggrieved of the additions so made, assessee preferred appeal. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee could gather remaining documents also, which could not be furnished before ld.AO and the same were furnished as additional evidences. After considering the same, ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal vide order dated 17.09.2024 in appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10013582, whereby appeal of assessee was allowed. Present appeal has been filed by the department against the order so passed by ld.CIT(A).
With this background, detailed submission is made as under:
Departmental Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 5:
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
17
In these grounds of appeal, department has challenged the action of ld.
CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,03,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as genuine and consequently allowing the Interest of Rs. 1,35,43,168/-as part of Working in Progress. Also, department has challenged the finding of ld.CIT(A) by stating that appeal was allowed without waiting /considering the remand report. Since all the grounds are inter related, the same are collectively dealt with for the sake of convenience.
To begin with, Departmental Ground of Appeal No. 2 & 4 are reproduced as under—
2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.
CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,03,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without waiting/receiving of Remand Report from JAO.
4. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,38,03,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without properly considering the Remand Report and various facts finding during the assessment proceeding.
From perusal of both the above grounds, it is evident that in ground no.2, it is stated that ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of assessee without waiting for/ receiving the remand report from the ld. JAO and on the other hand, in Ground No. 4 it is stated that ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered the remand report. It is thus submitted that grounds of appeal taken by department are self-contradictory and inconsistent. It is therefore requested before your honours that the appeal of department against the order of ld. CIT(A) is not maintainable being based on incorrect facts.
At this juncture, kind attention of your goodself is invited to letter dated
29.8.2024
bearing
DIN
&
Letter
No.
ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-
25/1068106729(1) issued by ld.AO (copy enclosed at WS 13), whereby ld.AO has sought written submission and documents from assessee in support of additional evidences furnished by assessee. In response to the same, assessee furnished all the details vide response dated
30.8.2024 (copy of acknowledgement enclosed at WS 14-15).
Further in reference to remand report it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) has clearly stated that ld.AO was given two opportunities to furnish remand report, once through letter dated 28.08.2024 against which no response was received by ld. CIT(A) (copy enclosed at WS 16-19).
Whereas, when another opportunity was given to submit report by 17.09.2024, ld. AO responded the same, though without making any comment/enquiry from the assessee, the admission of additional evidence was objected. Relevant para of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under—
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
18
“5.2.3
Remand report was called for from the AO vide letter dated 28.08.2024
with a direction to submit the report after examining the additional evidence submitted by the appellant, by 02.09.2024. However, the AO has neither submitted the report nor made any request for additional time to submit the report. Again, the AO was directed to submit the report by 17.09.2024, 11.00 am. Again, the AO has not called for any comment from the appellant nor made any verification with the lenders and submitted the remand report objecting the admission of evidence without making any comment on merit of the evidence.”
It is thus evident that adequate opportunity was afforded by ld. CIT(A) to ld.AO prior to deciding the appeal to furnish comments in respect of additional evidences furnished by assessee. Moreover, as ld.AO did not comment upon the merits of such evidences as to why the same was not acceptable, ld.CIT(A) took his own view in respect of such evidences, for which he is authorized to do so. It is therefore submitted that grounds of appeal no. 2 and 4 raised by the department are self- contradictory, contrary to the facts and not maintainable.
Now coming to merits of the case, w.r.t. remaining grounds of appeal, it is submitted that during the course of assessment, ld. AO while concluding the assessment had made the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 6,38,03,000/- taken from the following parties by considering it same as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act —

S.NO.
Party Name
Amount
1
Aventez Media Technology
40,00,000.00
2
Tarana Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
10,00,000.00
3
Yamini Investments Company Ltd.
38,00,000.00
4
Premier Bars Pvt. Ltd.
1,25,00,000.00
5
Shreeji Developers
69,10,000.00
6
Ankur Taneja
41,80,000.00
7
Kanha Projects Pvt. Ltd.
70,00,000.00
8
MP Rawat & Co.
50,00,000.00
9
Premier Metacast Pvt. Ltd.
1,90,00,000.00
10
Golden Dunes Construction Pvt. Ltd.
4,13,000.00
Total
6,38,03,000.00

In this regard, it is submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), assessee duly furnished all the remaining documentary evidences, which could not be gathered during assessment proceedings, which proved the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions by furnishing the ITR’s,
Audited Financial Statement, Bank Statement and confirmations of each of the lenders, on account of which additions have been made in Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
19
the hands of assessee. For the sake of convenience, names of parties and nature of relevant documentary evidences as furnished, are tabulated as under for ready reference—
S.
NO.
Name
PAN
Address
Documents Submitted before Ld. CIT(A)
Return of Income
Confirmat ion
Financial
Statemen ts
Bank
Stateme nt
1
Aventez
Media
Technolog y
AAGCR04
70A
Office No. 407, floor no.
04 Cresant Royal, Block
Sec, Off New Link Road,
Ambivali, Andheri West,
Mumbai, 400053
(APB
23)
(APB 24-
25)
(APB 26-
38)
(APB
39)
2
Tarana
Advertisin g &
Marketing
Pvt. Ltd.
AACCT75
09G
Swatantra Niwas,
Rohidas Nagar Kasam
Baug, Malad East,
Mumbai, 400097
(APB
40)
(APB 41-
42)
(APB 43-
49)

3
Yamini
Investment s
Company
Ltd.
AAACY15
80G
C-710, Crystal Plaza,
New Link Road, Andheri
West, Mumbai, 400053
(APB
50)
(APB 51-
52)
(APB 53-
84)
(APB
85-86)
4
Premier
Bars Pvt.
Ltd.
AADCP22
40B
402, Nidhi Kamal Tower,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur,
302006
(APB
87)
(APB 88-
89)
(APB 90-
119)
(APB
120-
121)
5
Shreeji
Developer s
ACDFS03
18L
F-16 Arya Square,
Subhash Nagar, Jaipur,
302016
(APB
122-
123)
(APB
124-125)
(APB
126-128)
(APB
129-
133)
6
Ankur
Taneja
ACRPT22
93D
58, Cosmo Colony
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur,
302021
(APB
134)
(APB
135-137)
(APB138
-146)
(APB
147-
160)
7
Kanha
Projects
Pvt. Ltd.
AACCK70
51L
Room No. 12, 3rd Floor,
Saha Court, 8, Ganesh
Chandra Avenue,
Kolkata, 700013
(APB
161)
(APB
162-163)
(APB
164-175)
(APB
176)
8
MP Rawat
& Co.
AALPR14
78C
181, Nemi Nagar,
Vaishali, Jaipur, 302021
(APB
177-
179)
(APB
180-181)
(APB
182-183)
(APB
184-
185)
9
Premier
Metacast
Pvt. Ltd.
AADCP59
53D
Fourth Floor, Shiv Som
Tower, The Mall, Kanpur,
208001
(APB
186)
(APB
187-188)
(APB
189-190)
(APB
191-
196)
10
Golden
Dunes
Constructi on Pvt.
Ltd.
AAECG11
73H
C-6, Vashisht Marg,
Hanuman Nagar,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur,
302021
(APB
197)
(APB
198-199)

(APB
200-
201)
It is again reiterated that during the course of appellate proceedings, ld.
CIT(A) provided opportunity to ld. AO to made necessary enquiries in respect of the details furnished by the assessee. However, ld. AO voluntary choose not to comment on the evidences on merits and objected the admission of additional evidences.
It is also submitted that ld. CIT(A) after duly considering the all the evidences furnished for each of the lender, held that identity and creditworthiness of Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
20
lender and genuineness of transaction are proved. It is not the case that ld.
CIT(A) has given general comment for all the lenders, instead ld. CIT(A) has specifically provided the reason for accepting the creditworthiness of each of the lender. It is thus submitted that ld.CIT(A), after duly considering all the additional evidences, has formed a view and held that assessee has duly discharged onus by proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of all the parties from whom loans were taken by assessee and has thus deleted the addition made by ld.AO.
In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements—
Aravali Trading Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 187 Taxman 338
(Rajasthan)/[2008] 220 CTR 622 (Rajasthan)[25-01-2007]
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year
1993-94 - Whether once existence of persons in whose names credits are found in books of assessee is proved and such persons own such credits with assessee, assessee is not required to prove sources from which creditors could have acquired money to be deposited with it - Held, yes - Whether merely because depositors' explanation about sources wherefrom they acquired money is not acceptable to Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that deposits made by such creditors are moneys of assessee itself - Held, yes - Whether in order to fasten liability on assessee by including such credits as its incomes from unexplained sources, a nexus has to be established by revenue that sources of creditors' deposit flow from assessee - Held, yes
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Deen Dayal Choudhary [2017] 88
taxmann.com 475 (Rajasthan)/[2017] 293 CTR 468 (Rajasthan)[15-07-2016]
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Loan) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Where all cash creditors had not only placed on record entire material but had also affirmed in their examination that they had advanced money to assessee from their own respective bank accounts, no question of law arose from Tribunal's order holding that genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors were well proved [In favour of assessee]
[2014] 45 taxmann.com 203 (Rajasthan)
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Unsecured loan from relatives) -Assessment year 2006-07 - Unsecured loan raised by assessee from relatives was added in income of assessee on ground that none of creditors were able to prove source of amount advanced to assessee and immediately before grant of loan by them cash was deposited in their accounts - However, it was admitted by Assessing Officer that all creditors were assessed to Income tax and they had provided confirmation as well as their PAN - Moreover, all payments were through account payee cheques and most of cash creditors appeared before Assessing Officer and were examined on oath - Whether since there was no clinching evidence nor Assessing
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
21
Officer had been able to prove that money actually belonged to none but to assessee himself, action of Assessing Officer appeared to be based on mere suspicion and, thus, addition required to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 9 & 10]
[In favour of assessee]
Labh Chand Bohra vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 189 Taxman 141
(Rajasthan)/[2008] 219 CTR 571 (Rajasthan)[28-04-2008]
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Whether where amounts found as cash credits in assessee's account books had been advanced by lenders by account payee cheques; identity of creditors had been established; their confirmations were available and they had also confirmed credits by making statements on oath, it could be said that assessee had discharged burden of proving identity and genuineness of transaction; so far as creditors' capacity to advance money to assessee was concerned, it was not a matter which would require assessee to establish, as that would amount to calling upon him to establish source of source - Held, yes
[2021] 133 taxmann.com 173 (Gujarat) Principal Commissioner of Income- tax. v. Gopal Heritage (P.) Ltd
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Unsecured loans) -
Assessee-company had taken unsecured loans from some persons - As assessee was not in a position to establish capacity and creditworthiness of depositor, Assessing Officer made an addition under section 68 - On appeal,
Commissioner (Appeals) thread bare examined entire material in case of each of these persons and entities and eventually held that identities of depositors had been proved and moreover, loans had been granted through banking channels and copy of bank statements also had been provided and deleted addition under section 68 – Tribunal confirmed said order - Whether since all ingredients contemplated under section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors, genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness, concurrent findings of both authorities deserved no interference - Held, yes
[Para 5] [In favour of assessee]
Kumar Nirman & Nivesh (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bangalore [2020] 121 taxmann.com 174 (Karnataka)/[2020] 425 ITR 486
(Karnataka)[31-01-2020]
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Burden of proof) -
Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee received a sum of Rs. 55 lakh by way of cash from B on various dates against a proposed contract for sale - But, sale could not be finalized on account of some reasons and amounts were paid back to B and accounts of B also showed repayment of said amount -
However, Assessing Officer treated sum of Rs. 55 lakh as unexplained cash credits in hands of assessee and added it to income of assessee and Tribunal mainatained order passed by Assessing Officer - However, it was found that assessee in support of identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of B had supplied a copy of balance sheet and profit and loss
Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur
22
account to Assessing Officer - Assessee had also filed copy of return of income of B - Whether, therefore, assessee having proved identity and creditworthiness of party B, as well as genuineness of transaction had discharged its burden and it was for revenue to conduct an enquiry and to prove that transaction in question was not genuine and identity of creditor was not established and that it had no creditworthiness - Held, yes - Whether since revenue had not conducted any enquiry and had failed to discharge its burden, addition under section 68 was not justified - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]
Cornerstone Property Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 152
taxmann.com 256 (Karnataka)[19-04-2023]
INCOME TAX : Where assessee allotted shares at premium to a company, since assessee produced various documents including copies of investor's bank statements, copies of share certificates, copy of its annual return filed before