OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1531/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23

Oliria
Foods and Beverages
Limited, A-130(H) First Floor,
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACC09015G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &
Sh. Harsh Poddar, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

: 24/02/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 17/04/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A) ] dated 17/12/2024 the assessee- appellant preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2022-23. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 16.03.2024
passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short
“Act”] which was passed by the National e-Assessment Unit [ for short AO].

2
- assessee M/s Oliria Foods and Beverages, (PAN- AACCO9015G) filed its return of income for AY 2022-23 as required u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961
on 04.10.2022 and declared its income at Rs. 45,40,270/-. The Assessee,
M/s Oliria Foods and Beverages, (PAN- AACCO9015G) is engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of food items. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS.
Statutory notices as required were issued to the assessee and was served upon. The reason for the selection of the case was to examine the following issue:
1. High Creditors/liabilities
2. Unsecured Loans
3. Expenditure of personal nature

6
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO of exact value or near to the value is deposited in the lender's bank account and immediately transferred to the bank account of the assessee. All other transactions in the bank account of the lender are of very small monetary value. All the lenders have filed ITR in the range of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs.
4,00,000/-. ITR and bank account statement of some of the lenders submitted by the assessee were reproduced in the order of the assessment vide page 6 to 28. Based on that papers so filed he noted that the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lenders are not established. Ld. AO to test check those loan creditor a letter u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to 8 persons, asking from them the ledger of the assessee in their books of account, bank statement along with other details were sought and the compliance was to be made by 10.02.2024. In response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, replies have been received from all the above 8 persons. The replies of the above persons and unsecured loan confirmation details submitted by the assessee were examined and taken on record by ld. AO. Upon examination of those details in case of bank statement submitted by Hiralbhai Maheshchandra
Rangrej, ld. AO noted that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was credited on 19.05.2021 and on 20.05.2021, the amount was transferred to the assessee. On examination of statement of bank account, it was also 7
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO noticed that the opening balance of the said account as on 01.04.2021 was Rs. 17,297/- and closing balance of the said account as on 31.03.2022 was Rs. 8,669/-. Apart from this transaction, all other transactions are of very small monetary value. On careful perusal of the statement of bank account of Mr. Hiralbhai Maheshchandra Rangrej, it appears that Mr. Hiralbhai
Maheshchandra Rangrej is an accommodation provider of the unsecured loan as the credit worthiness of the party could not be established.
Receiving an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 19.05.2021 and transferring the same to the assessee as an unsecured loan on 20.05.2021 indicates that Mr.
Hiralbhai
Maheshchandra
Rangrej has been acted as an accommodation entry operator / agent. Whereas in the case of bank account statement submitted by Mansukhbhai Dalsukhbhai Parmar also, the same pattern is noticed. On 22.04.2021, an amount of Rs.5,73,795/- was credited and on 23.04.2021, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee. Again on 29.06.2021, an amount of Rs.
10,00,000/- was credited and on 30.06.2021, the same amount was transferred to the assessee. On careful perusal of the statement of bank account of Mr. Mansukhbhai Dalsukhbhai Parmar, it appears that Mr.
Mansukhbhai Dalsukhbhai Parmar is an accommodation entry provider of the unsecured loan as the credit worthiness of the party could not be 8
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO established. Receiving an amount of Rs.5,73,795/- on 22.04.2021 & Rs.
10,00,000/- on 29.06.2021 and transferring the same to the assessee as an unsecured loan on 23.04.20218 30.06.2021 respectively indicates that Mr.
Mansukhbhai Dalsukhbhai Parmar has been acted as an accommodation entry operator/agent. In the bank account submitted by Mr. Natvarbhai
Varsanbhai Bariya (HUF), it was noticed that on 21.05.2021, an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was credited and immediately after this, Rs. 7,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee on 24.05.2021. There is no other transaction in this account except a few small amount transactions. Thus, this is not a normal business transaction. This is nothing but an accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan. The same pattern is also noticed in the bank account of Mr. Nareshkumar Shankarlal Solanki wherein an amount of Rs.
6,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- was credited on 24.05.2024 and Rs.
10,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee on the same day. In case of Mr. Shivrambhai Adabhai Chaudhari also, an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was credited in his bank account on 25.05.2021 and on the same day, amount of Rs. 9,00,041.80 was transferred to the assessee. Further, bank account statement in respect of Mr. Abhishek Pravinbhai Prajapati and Smt.
Shardaben Dilipbhai Solanki was not furnished by the assessee. On examination of the bank statement of Smt. Manjulaben Dineshbhai Maheta,

9
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO it was noticed that Rs. 6,99,993/- was credited on 21.05.2021 and on 24.05.2021, an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee.
Except this transaction, all other transactions are of very small monetary value. In the case of Smt. Mamtaben Pravinbhai Prajapati also, it was noticed that Rs. 4,80,000/- was credited in her bank account on 17.04.2021
and the same amount was transferred to the assessee on 20.04.2021. The same pattern is also noticed in the bank account of Mr. Rajeshkumar
Dhulalal Nai. On 24.05.2021, an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was credited in his account and on the same day, an amount of Rs. 8,00,011.80 was transferred to the assessee. All other transactions are of very small amount. On examination of the bank statement of Shri Ramanbhai
Chandubhai Parmar, it was noticed that Rs. 4,93,000/-was credited on 28.06.2021 and on 29.06.2021, amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- were transferred to the assessee. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 4,07,000/- was credited in the account on 30.06.2021 and amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- was transferred to the assessee on 01.07.2021. On examination of the bank account of Kajal
Balubhai Prajapati also, the same pattern is noticed. The bank statement submitted by Kajal Balubhai Prajapati was reproduced in the assessment order. Similarly, the bank statement submitted by Shailesh Rasiklal
Sanghvi (HUF) was examined and it was noticed that Rs. 14,28,897/- was 10
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO credited on 27.05.2021 and Rs. 9,00,011/- was transferred to the assessee on 28.05.2021. On 31.05.2021 Rs. 2,21,000/- was credited in his account and on the same day Rs. 7,50,011/- was transferred to the assessee. No other significant transaction is noticed in the said bank account. Ld. AO thus noted that all the lenders have acted as accommodation entry providers as the creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of unsecured loans could not be ascertained. The transactions are not normal business transactions. The assessee also did not explain the nature of these unsecured loans nor furnished complete documents. Therefore, it is reasonably concluded that the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.
10,24,75,690/- are nothing but accommodation entries. Having observed so ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 21.02.2024 and the assessee furnished the reply on 04.03.2024, ld. AO considered the reply of the assessee and found that the same were not acceptable based on the reasons as discussed herein above. Hence, he holds that the transaction of accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.
10,24,75,690/- during the A.Y. 2022-23 and was added as the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act.

11
3. Feeling aggrieved from that order of assessment, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the finding of the ld. AO. The appeal of the assessee was decided by ld. CIT(A) by observing as under :
“Decision :I have carefully considered the facts of the case, above submission of the appellant as well as gone through the observation and findings of the AO 's assessment order. I find the AO on perusal of submission of the appellant, in course of scrutiny assessment proceedings , is of opinion that all the lenders have acted as accommodation entry provider as the creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of unsecured loans could not be ascertained and consequently he
(the AO) draws inferences that the transactions are not normal business transactions since the assessee did not explain the nature of these unsecured loans, nor furnished complete documents. On the other hand it is observed from the submission of the appellant that despite providing all the relevant documents the AO has made addition invoking section 68 illegally, unjustifiably based on suspicion, surmises, guesswork and conjectures.

On careful observation of return of income vis-a vis tax audit report it is observed that unsecured Loan of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- was taken from the various (120
Numbers) shareholders for "0" rate of interest for which the shareholders details and loan details as shown in the return of income (ROI) is reproduced as under:

12
As far as Purpose of Unsecured Loan and/or objective of Unsecured Loan is concerned I find the appellant is miserable failed to divulge the reason for taking this huge interest free Loan from its shareholders. The need for any business exegency or any kind of business purpose or any other purpose remain unestablished by the appellant with supporting evidence. Interest free Loan receiving at the beginning of the Financial Year under consideration and repayment within the very next beginning of Financial Year forced me to hold that such loan transaction was made not for any business exigencies but for some other inherent pre-conceived benefit or any kind of benefit including providing entry
& tax evasion.

In course of appeal proceedings it is observed from the Tax Audit report for the A.Y
2022-23 vide sl. no. 40 of form 3CD as per below:

21
4,67,60,488/- in preceding previous year to Rs. 19,64,96,990/- this preceding year,
Gross profit to Turnover ratio decreases / reduces from 32.60% to 17.27% this preceding year. Simultaneously Net profit to Turnover ratio decreases / reduces from 6.00% to 1.34% in the year under consideration. The above two ratios again increases in the next financial year i.e in the F.Y 2022-23 i.e in the A.Y 2023-24
from 17.27% to 27.91% and from 1.34% to 2.73% respectively when the purported loan has been repaid though the turnover figure has been changed from Rs.
19,64,96,990/- to 19,84,96,990/- as well as Net profit amount changed from Rs
26,87,244/- to Rs. 38,47,296/-along with change of net profit % from 1.34 to 1.94
as per the reproduction of the relevant portion of the Audit report as under :

22
It is observed that the appellant is unable to file any satisfactory reply to justify the logic behind genuine loan received from the shareholders for any specific purpose vis-a vis failed to justify the genuineness of sudden receipt and payment of the interest free loan transaction within a short time span.

The appellant cannot escape from the burden cast upon it and unfortunately in this case the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the transactions which were made by the appellant had phenomenal fall in Gross Profit as well as net profit in the year under consideration.

Despite availing adequate opportunity the appellant is unable to establish and prove that there was no manipulation in the other end and whatever benefits the appellant has reaped was not tainted. I find during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) has culled out proximate facts in each of the case took into consideration the surrounding circumstances which came to light after the investigation, took note of the proximity of the time between the receipt and payment of transaction and also the sudden and steep fall of the profits of the of the company and thereafter arrived at a conclusion.

For all the above reasons, I hold that the alleged transaction is obviously made for tax Evasion. Therefore, such transactions are not genuine but pre-conceived resulting in creation of bogus claim and, therefore, are sham transactions.
Accordingly I find no infirmity in the order of the AO and resultantly, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of the AO dated 16-03-2024 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference. Therefore, I am of opinion that AO's decision of invoking provision of section 68 of the I.T Act is justified in absence of satisfactory explanation on the part of the appellant. Accordingly I hold alleged unsecured interest free loan as bogus and the addition of Rs.10,24,75,690/- by invoking provision of section 68 of the I.T Act is in order and therefore, stand confirmed. The grounds No. 3,4,5 of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

25
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO appellant preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the 1 Learned Assessing Officer in completing the assessment u/s 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inspite of making all the compliances against the notice issued by the learned AO.

26
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- on a different ground that assessee failed to explain the phenomenal fall in Gross Profit and Net
Profit without affording any opportunity to the assessee in this regard.
Since, those grounds emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A) and considering the various decision cited in the application filed by the assessee the bench considered the above additional grounds.
6. To support the various grounds raised by the assessee ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission which reads as under :
“The assessee is private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of food items. The assessee company filed its return of income for assessment year 2022-23, declaring total income of Rs.
45,40,270/- on 04.10.2022. Copy of acknowledgement of return so filed along with computation of total income is available on Paper Book Page No.1. The books of accounts are duly audited and copy of audit report with audited accounts is available on Paper Book Page No.2-39. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through "CASS" for the reason of "high creditors/liabilities and unsecured loans". During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to notice u/s 142(1) issued by the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished the complete names, addresses, confirmation with PAN, copy of ITRs, copy of bank statement etc. in respect of creditors from whom the assessee had taken unsecured loans to start a new joint venture project. All these unsecured loans were returned to the creditors in subsequent years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer also conducted independent inquiry from some of the creditors by issuance of notices u/s 133(6).
The assessee also furnished detailed reply on 04/03/2024 to the show-cause notice dated 21/02/2024 issued by the Learned Assessing Officer. A copy of this reply dated 04.03.2024 is available on Paper Book Page No. 680 to 687. The confirmation, copy of ITR and copy of bank account of the creditors were also filed before the Learned Assessing Officer. However, the Learned Assessing Officer, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the written submission and details filed by the assessee, completed the assessment u/s 144 read with Sec.
144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16/03/2024 by making the following additions :-
1
Unexplained cash credits added u/s 68
Rs. 10,24,75,690

Against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.
10,24,75,690/- but on different grounds. The Learned CIT(A) has held as under –
"As far as Purpose of Unsecured Loan and/or objective of Unsecured Loan is concerned I find the appellant is miserable failed to divulge the reason for taking this huge interest free Loan from its shareholders. The need for any business exigency or nay kind of business purpose or any other purpose remain unestablished by the appellant with supporting evidence. Interest free Loan receiving at the beginning of the Financial Year under consideration and repayment within the very next beginning of Financial Year forced to hold that such loan transaction was made not for any business exigencies but for some other inherent pre-conceived benefit including providing entry and tax evasion………
It is observed that the appellant is unable to file any satisfactory reply to justify the logic behind genuine loan received from the shareholders for any specific purpose vis-a vis failed to justify the genuineness of sudden receipt and payment of the interest free loan transaction within a short time span.
The appellant cannot escape from the burden cast upon it and unfortunately in this case the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the transactions which were made by the appellant had phenomenal fall in Gross Profit as well as net profit in the year under consideration.
For all the above reasons, I hold that the alleged transaction is obviously made for tax Evasion.
Therefore, such transactions are not genuine but per-conceived resulting in creating of bogus claim and, therefore, are sham transactions. Accordingly I find no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer and resultantly, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of the Assessing Officer dated 16-03-
2024 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference."
Before dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee failed to specify the purpose for which loans were taken, the learned CIT(A) did not provide any opportunity to the assessee for submitting the reply in this regard.
Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that while filing appeal the following grounds could not being taken due to inadvertence. The same is being taken as Additional
Grounds. The Additional Grounds arise out of the order of the Learned CIT(A). The admission of the same is imperative for imparting justice in the case. The Additional Grounds are as under:-

28
Additional Ground No. 1 & 2 –
(1)
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- on a different ground i.e. assessee failed to specify the purpose of loans without affording any opportunity to the assessee in this regard.

(2)
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- on a different ground that assessee failed to explain the phenomenal fall in Gross Profit and Net
Profit without affording any opportunity to the assessee in this regard.
In the above regard a separate application has been filed for admission of the additional grounds. The Hon'ble Tribunal is humbly requested to admit the additional grounds. The assessee now takes up first the additional grounds for discussion.
Additional Ground No.1 –
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- on a different ground i.e. assessee failed to specify the purpose of loans without affording any opportunity to the assessee in this regard.
It is submitted that while completing the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 16.03.2024 the Learned Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- in respect of cash credits treating the same as unexplained u/s 68 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961. The only grounds on which the cash credits were rejected by the Learned Assessing Officer were that the creditors who had advanced loan to the assessee were filing return of income with meager income say Rs. 2 Lakh to 4
Lakh. The other ground on which the cash credits were rejected was in the bank account of the creditors cash was deposited immediately before the loan was granted to the assessee. In view of these facts the Learned Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the creditors and held the same being not normal and held the unsecured loans as accommodation entries. The Learned Assessing
Officer nowhere referred as for what purpose the loans were taken by the assessee nor any query was raised in this regard.
However, in appeal the Learned CIT(A) has observed as under in the appellate order -
"As far as Purpose of Unsecured Loan and/or objective of Unsecured Loan is concerned I find the appellant is miserable failed to divulge the reason for taking this huge interest free Loan from its shareholders. The need for any business exigency or nay kind of business purpose or any other purpose remain unestablished by the appellant with supporting evidence. Interest free Loan receiving at the beginning of the Financial Year under consideration and 29
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO repayment within the very next beginning of Financial Year forced to hold that such loan transaction was made not for any business exigencies but for some other inherent pre-conceived benefit including providing entry and tax evasion" (Page 85
of the appellate order)
In view of the aforesaid observation of the Learned CIT(A) it is submitted that the same is totally irrelevant. For determining the genuineness of cash credits. It is of little avail as for what purpose the same were obtained. Further before confirming the addition on this ground, the Learned CIT(A) never afforded any opportunity in this regard. The Learned CIT(A) never asked the assessee to furnish and divulge the purpose for which the loans were taken. The action of the Learned CIT(A) in confirming the cash credits on this ground is against the principles of equity and justice. Therefore, the action of the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be quashed.
It is further submitted that although the Learned CIT(A) did not furnish any opportunity to the assessee to disclose the purpose of loans but while filing the appeal the assessee has disclosed in the column 11 (statement of facts) "Here it is worthwhile to mention that during the year under consideration the assessee has entered in MOU with other corporate entity to start a new joint venture project and the whole money was advanced to M/s Nakshatra Corporate Advisors Limited,
Nagpur for setting up of new project in joint venture." The Learned CIT(A) perhaps did not go through the facts of the case otherwise he would have avoided confirming the addition on this ground.
It is further submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee had entered into an agreement under the name and style "Mandate cum Sourcing
Agreement" on 08.03.2021 with Nakshatra Corporate Advisors Limited. A copy of this agreement is available on paper book page no. 688 to 693. The assessee has executed this agreement for acquiring tangible business assets preferably stress assets of Tijaria Polypipes Limited from Bank of India. For this purpose, Nakshatra
Corporate Advisors Limited was authorized to coordinate and settle all outstanding dues of Bank of India. The assessee had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15 Crore as consultancy fees. The assessee paid Rs. 10,00,00,000/- during the year under consideration from April-2021 to August-2021. Copies of the ledger accounts of Nakshatra Corporate Advisors Limited as appearing in the books of assessee and vice-versa are available on Paper Book Page No. 694 to 698. It is for this purpose i.e. for making payment to Nakshatra Corporate Advisors Limited that assessee had sought loans from various parties. The purpose of loan is thus amply proved.
Additional Ground No. 2 –
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- on a different ground that assessee failed to explain the phenomenal fall in Gross Profit and Net Profit without affording any opportunity to the assessee in this regard.
It is further submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has again erred in confirming the addition of cash credits on a ground which was neither disclosed to the assessee nor such ground was taken by the Learned Assessing Officer. The Learned CIT(A) has observed in the appellate order as under: -

31
CIT(A) that "The app unfortunately in this transactions which w
Profit as well as net appellate order).
It is submitted that in give an impression th and NP. It is in fact ve
He has miserably fail that GP has got nothin huge payment of int charged on the loans anyway connected w absolutely not related loans already stands e submission of the a observations of the L
Assessing Officer and The assessee now tak
Ground No. 1 –
In the facts and in the has erred in confirmin the assessment u/s 1
the compliances again
32

Oliria Foods and n the aforesaid para the Learned CIT(A P disclosed by the assessee. It is the c ppellant cannot escape from the burde case the burden is heavy as the fact were made by the appellant had pheno t profit in the year under consideration n the aforesaid observation the Learned hat the loans obtained by the assessee ery ridiculous on the part of the Learned C ed to link the profits with creditors. It is ng to do with the creditors. However, NP terest to creditors. But in this case no taken by the assessee. Therefore, the lo with GP or NP. The observation of the with the genuineness of the creditors. Fu explained in the forgoing para. The sum a assessee is that Hon'ble ITAT may k
Learned CIT(A) in toto. The addition m d so confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) ma kes up the regular grounds of appeal for d e circumstances of the case and in law, ng the action of the Learned Assessing O
144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961
A) has discussed the case of the Learned en cast upon it and ts establish that the omenal fall in Gross n." (Page 98 of the d CIT(A) has tried to resulted in fall in GP
CIT(A) to observe so.
common knowledge is affected if there is o interest has been ans were not at all in Learned CIT(A) are urther the purpose of and substance of the kindly disregard the ade by the Learned ay kindly be deleted.
discussion –
In the case of the assessee assessment proceedings were initiated with the issue of notice u/s 143(2) on 01.06.2023. During the course of assessment proceedings the Learned Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 144 on 21.12.2023. A copy of this notice is available on Paper Book Page No. 699 to 702. Subsequently show cause notice was also issued on 21.02.2024. copy of this notice is also available on Paper Book Page No. 703 to 710. Although assessee complied with all the notices issued by the Learned Assessing Officer and submitted desired information from time to time yet the Learned Assessing Officer has erroneously and unlawfully has completed the assessment u/s 144. This is apparent from the following observation of the Learned Assessing Officer –
"3.2.3 For the sake of natural justice, as per provisions of section 144B(1)(ix) of the IT Act, one more opportunity was given to the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed to the best of its judgment invoking the provisions under section 144 rws 147 of the IT Act. Accordingly, a Show Cause
Notice u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the IT Act was issued on 21.12.2023 asking to submit response on or before 28.12.2023. The assessee responded and sought adjournment. The assessee filed its reply on 06.01.2024 and furnished copy of ITR alongwith computation of income, Audit Report and details of shareholders etc. A centralized communication was also sent to the assessee on 18.01.2024 to which the assessee replied on 20.01.2024 and furnished details of unsecured loan.
Another notice 142(1) of the I.T. Act was issued to assessee on 01.02.2024
requesting the assessee to furnish the details of trade creditors/liabilities. The assessee sought adjournment which was granted and the assessee was requested to furnish the details on or before 15.02.2024. The assessee furnished the details of sundry creditors on 15.02.2024." (from assessment order para 3.2.3)
3.3.2 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68
The assessee has furnished the details of unsecured loan for F.Y. 2021-22. The assessee submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee company has availed fresh unsecured loan of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- from its directors or shareholders. In response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, the assessee furnished ledger, copy of ITR and bank account statement in confirmation of loan availed. Vide its response to SCN also, the assessee furnished only ledger and copy of ITR of some of the lenders from whom unsecured loan was availed." (from assessment order para 3.3.2)
The perusal of the aforesaid para reveal that the Learned Assessing Officer has observed that assessee furnished:- (i) copy of income tax returns, (ii) computation of income, (iii) details of trade creditors, (iv) details of sundry creditors, (v) audit report, and (vi) details of share holders. In view of furnishing the details nothing remains for compliance on the part of the assessee. Yet, the assessment has been completed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 144 as is mentioned in column 13 on the first page of the assessment order. It is submitted that despite compliance of all notices and furnishing of complete information, if the Learned
Assessing Officer still thought if fit to complete the assessment u/s 144 then it was 34
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO first required of him to reject the books of accounts u/s 145(3). The relevant provisions of section 145(3) are quoted below –
(i)
Method of accounting.
145. (1) Income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources” shall, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee.
(2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time income computation and disclosure standards to be followed by any class of 34ssesses or in respect of any class of income.
(3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) has not been regularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the standards notified under sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. The perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that it is the mandate of section 145
that before completing assessment u/s 144 the Learned Assessing Officer is required to reject the books of accounts u/s 145(3) on the ground that the Learned
Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the same or the method of accounting has not been regularly followed. It is submitted that in the entire assessment order the Learned Assessing Officer has not observed nor has given any such finding. In view of this the completion of assessment u/s 144 is bad in law. The same deserves to be quashed. The following case laws are quoted in support –
(i)
CIT Vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar)
(iii)
It is also relevant to mention that the Learned CIT(A) on the first page of the appellate order has also mentioned that the order appeals was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed as the Learned Assessing Officer has not followed the provisions of section 145(3).
Ground No. 2 –
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,59,890/- made by the Learned
During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee submitted before the Learned CIT(A) as under: -
"It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.
4,59,890/- on the ground that sales disclosed in the trading account (audited) was only of Rs.19,84,96,990/- whereas in the GST return, the same was of Rs.
19,90,07,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the discrepancy was explained by the assessee stating that this was because of the fact that there was sales of Rs. 5,10,500/- of fixed assets, which was not part of trading account.
A chart reconciling the discrepancy was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, which has been reproduced by the Learned Assessing
Officer on page 5 of the assessment order. The same is scanned below :-

However, although assessee fully explained the discrepancy, yet the Learned
CIT(A) in a very causal manner disregarded the submission of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer. The humble submission of the assessee is that the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly consider the aforesaid submission and grant relief to the assessee.
Ground No. 3 & 4–

36
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inspite of furnishing all evidences regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuiness of the transaction.
(4)
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- without making any enquiry from the loan creditors or without brining any adverse material on record that the transaction is not genuine only on the basis of assumption and presumption inspite of that loan has been repaid in subsequent years.
During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee submitted a detailed submission regarding the addition made u/s 68 in respect of cash credits of Rs.
10,24,75,690/-. In this submission the assessee emphatically explained that the cash credits were genuine. The assesse furnished evidence of the existence of the cash creditors, their identify was established. The PAN were furnished. The financial capacity was also established by way of furnishing their income tax returns and bank accounts. The genuineness of the transactions of loans were also established as the same were through banking channels. It is submitted that despite this the Learned CIT(A) has summarily rejected the submission of the assessee for no reason. The Learned CIT(A) has simply sustained the addition on surmises, guess work and conjectures. The first ground on which addition has been sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is that there was no logic for being the loans received and secondly despite heavy loan there was fall in GP rate. Both these grounds are not even distantly connected with the genuineness of the cash creditors. The Learned CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the addition holding the same as bogus and sham transactions. It is submitted that on record there is no evidence that the cash creditors are bogus or these are sham transactions. The entire exercise both by the Learned Assessing Officer as well as by the Learned
CIT(A) in holding the cash creditors as bogus is a futile exercise. The assessee has submitted that the purpose of loans taken was for acquiring stress assets of Tijaria Poly Pipes Ltd as the assessee did not succeed in acquiring the same, the loans were immediately returned. It would further be observed that the amount of loans taken is Rs. 10,24,75,690/- and the same matches with the amount of Rs.
10,00,00,000/- advanced by the assessee to Nakhastra Corporate Advisors
Limited. In view of this it is submitted that the addition made by the Learned
Assessing Officer and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.
The submission made before the Learned CIT(A) is quoted below for ready reference –
The grounds No. 3 & 4 are taken together for discussion. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny in order to examine creditors and unsecured loans. During the year under consideration, the assessee has availed loans of Rs.
10,24,75,690/- and strangely enough, all these loans have been treated by the 37
Learned Assessing Officer as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. The grounds on which additions have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer are as under :-
(i)
Scrutiny of bank account of few creditors .

The Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned on page 6 of the assessment order that examination of the bank account of some of the depositors revealed that in the relevant account, amount of the same value which has been advanced to the assessee has been deposited immediately before transferring to the assessee.
The Learned Assessing Officer has entertained doubts and suspicion about such nature of deposits in the bank account before transferring the same to the assessee.
Secondly, the Learned Assessing Officer has further observed that besides the amount transferred to the assessee, the other transactions in the bank account are of small monetary value.
The Learned Assessing Officer has further observed that the return of income filed by these depositors discloses income ranging from Rs. 3 lac to Rs. 4 lac.
In view of these facts, the Learned Assessing Officer was of the view that the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the lenders was not established.
It is submitted that the above general observations have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer by examining cursorily a few IT returns and bank accounts of the depositors. He has examined only seven IT returns and two bank accounts whereas the number of depositors is 121. The sample size of the Learned Assessing Officer was not adequate enough to make general observations. Over and above this, each cash credit is individually different and cannot be compared with any other cash credit. So the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified to make any general observation without examining all the cash credits.
(ii) Notice u/s 133(6) to eight persons

The Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned on page 29 of the assessment order that notices u/s 133(6) were issued in 8 cases noted below. Relevant page
29 is scanned below :-

38
In addition of the above examination of depositors, the Learned Assessing Officer has further discussed on Page 30-35 the bank accounts of certain depositors, a few of them are discussed below, which shows that the Learned Assessing Officer did not examine the bank accounts in proper perspective.
After examining the bank accounts of these depositors, the Learned Assessing
Officer has made the same observations that amounts in the accounts has been credited only a few days earlier to transferring the same to the assessee. Further, apart from the amount transferred to the assessee, other transactions are of insignificant amount. In some cases, the opening and closing balances were of little amount. On the basis of these facts, the Learned Assessing Officer has given a finding that the depositors are only accommodation entry providers and creditworthiness of the parties could not be established.
It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition by making superficial allegations. The examination of bank account of the depositors is not wholesome. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified to hold that the depositors were entry providers without bringing any material on record. There is no material with the Learned Assessing Officer to hold that there was round-tripping of the amounts. It is not the case of the Learned Assessing
Officer that he was in possession of evidence that the assessee paid cash in lieu of the amount received from the respective parties as share application money.
The additions have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer more on the basis of suspicion, guess work and conjecture and not on evidence. The Learned
Assessing Officer did not appreciate the evidences furnished before him in the shape of confirmations, Income Tax returns and copy of bank account. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the entire cash credits of Rs.10,24,75,690/- as unexplained under section 68 is assailed and contested as under :-
(a)
IT returns and bank statements in respect of all cash-creditors numbering
121

It is submitted that in respect of all the 121 depositors, deposits totaling to Rs.
10,24,75,690/-, the assessee is furnishing a chart containing the name of the creditors, their complete address, Permanent Account Number, Amount of loan and source of deposit with evidences, i.e. copy of bank account of the creditors, their confirmation, leger account of the assessee showing repayment of the loan along with date, copy of bank account of the assessee in support of repayment of 40
Book Page No. 40-679. It is submitted that identity of each depositor is established beyond doubt on furnishing of PAN and ITR. The genuineness of transaction of deposit is further proved as the same is through banking channel. The capacity of the depositor is further proved as there are large scale transactions in the bank account of each depositor. It is not a case where the bank account contains only a loan transaction of deposit made to the assessee by the depositor. In the facts and circumstances of the case, theld Assessing Officer was not justified in treating all the deposits as unexplained by making surface inquiries and uncalled for observations in respect of few depositors. The facts of each depositor are different and these required to be examined independently. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer in summarily rejecting the submissions of the assessee and treating all the deposits as unexplained was most unjustified. All the deposits are genuine and deserve to be accepted.
(b)
Examination of bank account of depositors
The Learned Assessing Officer has made sweeping generalizations by making superficial observations in respect of the bank account of the depositors. First of all, the assessee takes up for discussion certain cases which the Learned
Assessing Officer has made basis and has discussed the same on Page 29 to 35
of the assessment order. These are discussed as under :-
1. Hiralbhai Maheshchandra Rangrej : Rs.10,00,000
It is the case of the Learned Assessing Officer that in this case, amount of Rs.
10,00,000/- has come in the account on 19/5/2021 and transferred to the assessee on 20/05/2021. The opening balance are meagre.
However, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has come in the bank account on 19/5/2021
through RTGS. There is no cash deposit. Further the copy of account also discloses that the assessee was having balance of Rs. 1,95,665/- on 21/9/2020. There is another transaction of Rs. 1,83,000/- transferred to Shri Ajay D Gajjar on 22/9/2020. Therefore, it cannot be said that deposit with the assessee of Rs.
10,00,000/- is the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 13/02/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted. In view of this, the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified to hold that the depositor was an accommodation entry provider. The deposit is genuine and deserves to be accepted.
2. Mansukhbhai Dalksukhbhai Parmar :Rs.16,00,000
It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer has failed to critically examine the bank account of the creditor furnished before him. There is no denying the fact that amount received through banking channel a few days before has been transferred to the assessee. But all these transactions are not in cash. There is no deposit in cash in the bank account. Further, after depositing amount with the 41
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO assessee, there are transactions of deposit of Rs.5,73,795/- on 22/4/2021 and Rs. 11,77,916/- on 18/6/2021. These amounts have also been utilized by the depositor in advancing the amount to other depositors. The multiplicity of these heavy transactions establish beyond doubt the capacity of the depositor and genuineness of the deposit Rs. 16,00,000/- with the assessee. Further, the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- has been repaid to the creditor through cheuqe on 06/01/2023. In view of this position, the loan deserves to be accepted notwithstanding the faulty observations of the Learned Assessing Officer, who has avoided observations regarding other heavy transactions.
3. Natwar Bhai Varsanbhai Bariya, HUF Rs.7,00,000/-
It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly observed that Natwar Bhai Varsanbhai Bariya (HUF) was an entry provider. The ld Assessing
Officer has not observed the fact that on 3/4/2021 also, there is a transaction of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, the Learned Assessing Officer was wrong in observing that besides the transaction of Rs. 7,00,000/- deposited with the assessee on 24/5/2021, other transactions are of small amount transactions. It is to be stated here that the loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee through cheque 31/3/2023. In view of this, the observation of the Learned Assessing
Officer is wrong. The deposit is genuine and requires to be accepted.
4. Shivrambhai Adabhai Choudhari : Rs 9,00,000
In this case also, the observations of the Learned Assessing Officer are in respect of a part of the bank account. The Learned Assessing Officer has restricted his observation to the deposit on 28/5/2021, which has been transferred on the same date to the assessee.
However, on 25/5/2021 also, there is transfer of amount to some other party and on this very date, there is transfer of Rs. 3,70,000/-. These facts show that the multiple transactions of heavy amounts reflect that the assessee was having capacity to deposit money with the assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer has ignored the fact that it is not only on 28/5/2021 that amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- has come in the bank account which has been transferred to the assessee, but on 24/5/2021 also, Rs. 12,69,422/- also came to the account through RTGS and the same was transferred on 25/5/2021 to some other parties. These facts establish that the depositor was having capacity to deposit Rs. 9,00,000/- with the assessee.
Further, the loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 2/1/2023
through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the loan is genuine and the same deserves to be accepted.
5. Kajal Babulal Prajapati : Rs.10,50,000/- (S.No.59)
The observation of the Learned Assessing Officer are not correct. The perusal of bank account of the depositor discloses that besides depositing money with the assessee, the depositor has advanced Rs. 2,00,000/- on 8/7/2020 to Rahul Bhai and similarly, Rs 5,00,000/- has been advanced to Piyush Patel on 9/11/2020. All these transactions are through RTGS. The multiplicity of transactions of heavy amounts establish the capacity of the depositor to deposit amount with the assessee. Further, the loan of Rs. 10,50,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 4/1/2023 through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
6. Shailesh Rasiklal Sanghvi : Rs.16,50,000/-
The Learned Assessing Officer has restricted himself in observing that the amount of Rs. 9,00,011/- was transferred to assessee's account on 28/5/2021 against receipt of amount of Rs. 14,28,897/- on 27/5/2021. Further, Rs.7,50,011/-was also transferred to the assessee's account on 31/5/2021 on receipt of Rs. 221000/- on this very day in the account of the creditor. However, the Learned Assessing
Officer has ignored that there is receipt of Rs. 7,25,000/- on 16/3/2021 against which the assessee transferred Rs. 7,00,000/- to Shivam Arat. This shows that creditor was also advancing money to other parties. This proves the credibility and capacity of the depositor in advancing money to the assessee. The observations of the Learned Assessing Officer are faulty. Further, the loan of Rs.
16,50,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 07/02/2023 through cheque.
Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra.
Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
7. Naresh Kumar Shankarlal Solanki : 10,00,000/-
In respect of this depositor also, the Learned Assessing Officer has made a very restricted observation that amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- was credited in the account of the depositor on 24/5/2021 and transferred to the account of the assessee on the same date. However, the Learned Assessing
Officer has ignored the other transactions available in the bank account of the depositor. The opening Balance as on 13/4/2021 is of Rs. 10,02,579/-. Further, amount has come in the account of the depositor of Rs. 1,74,000/- on this very date, i.e. 13/4/2021. Again the depositor has advanced Rs. 10,00,000/- on 13/4/2021 to M/s Shiv Buildingcom. This shows that the assessee was making advances to other parties also. The deposit with the assessee is not a lone transaction. Further, all transactions are through RTGS. There is no cash deposit in the account of the depositor. Further, the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 10/01/2023 through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Thus, the amount advanced to the assessee is well explained and deserves to be accepted.
8. Abhishek Praveenbhai Prajapati : Rs.4,00,000/-
The Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned that the copy of bank account was not furnished, which now is available on the Paper Book. The perusal of the bank account reveals that the opening balance as on 21/6/2021 is of Rs. 5,42,721/-. It 43
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO is on 2/7/2021 that Rs. 4,00,000/- has been advanced to the assessee. Earlier to this, the depositor had advanced Rs. 3,00,000/- on 21/6/2021 to Neha Ramanbhai
Parmar. Further, amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been received in the account of the depositor through RTGS on 1/7/2021. It is out of this amount that Rs. 4 lac has been advanced to the assessee on 2/7/2021. On this very date, i.e. 2/7/2021, the depositor had advanced Rs 4 lac to Vardhaman Jain. Thus, the account of the depositor discloses multiple transactions running into several lakhs. Advances have been made to other parties besides the assessee. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the account of the depositor. Further, the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 31/01/2023 through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. In view of these facts, it is established beyond doubt that the deposit with the assessee is genuine and well explained.
9. Shardaben Dilipbhai Solanki : Rs.9,00,000/-
In respect of this depositor, the Learned Assessing Officer has observed that copy of bank account was not furnished, which is available on Paper Book. The perusal of the bank account reveals opening balance of Rs. 5,01,283/- on 29/6/2021. Out of this, Rs. 4,90,000/- was advanced to the assessee on 29/6/2021. There is further receipt through RTGS on 1/7/2021 of Rs. 4,08,000/-. After receipt of this amount, the depositor has further advanced Rs. 4,10,000/- to the assessee on 1/7/2021. Thus, total amount advanced to the assessee is Rs. 9,00,000/-.

Besides the above transactions relating to the assessee, there is further deposit in the account of the depositor of Rs. 11,10,466/- on 5/10/2021. Out of this amount, advances have been made to Zeel Corporation of Rs. 4,95,000/- on 11/7/2021 and Rs.4,90,000/- on 12/8/2021. The perusal of the bank account establishes the fact that the depositor was making advances running into several lacs to other parties also. Therefore, his creditworthiness is established. Further, the loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 031/01/2023. through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
Examination of bank account of other depositors
Now after discussing the bank accounts of depositors, which have been wrongly and adversely commented by the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee submits details of bank accounts of other depositors, which establish the source of deposits in a clear-cut way. It is submitted that the bank accounts discussed above in respect of nine depositors also disclose that –
(a)
The deposit with the assessee was not the only transaction in the bank account of the depositor ;
(b)
The bank account contain no cash deposit ;
(c)
All the transactions in the bank account are through RTGS and other electronic modes ;

44
The position being so, the deposit made with the assessee by the depositors is well explained and deserves to be accepted. It is further submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer was wrong in treating all the deposits as unexplained on the basis of wrong analysis of the bank accounts of some of the depositors. In order to support the case that the deposits are genuine, the assessee is further submitting analysis of bank accounts in the case of following depositors :-
(1)
Aruna Ben Lalit Bhai Soni : Rs. 7,00,000
Copy of bank account with Karur Vysya Bank for the period 14/9/2020 to 26/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is credit of Rs. 5,27,500/- on 9/10/2020 and on 13/10/2020, advance has been made with Arham Wealth Management of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
Again, there is credit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 13/10/2020 which has been advanced to Arham Wealth Management. Again there is credit in the bank account on 14/10/2020 of Rs. 6,90,000/- and on this very date, amount of Rs 7,00,000/- has been advanced to Arham Wealth. The assessee has received Rs. 7,00,000/- on 26/5/2021 through RTGS against amount received on 25/5/2021 in the bank account of the depositor. The perusal of the bank account reveals that there are multiple transactions running into several lacs. Further, there are no cash transactions. The bank account establishes the capacity of the depositor in making advance to the assessee. Further, the loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 04/01/2023 through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(2)
Asha Sunil Bhai Rathod : Rs. 5,00,000
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd for the period 14/11/2018 to 27/05/2021 is available on paper book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is credit of Rs.11,80,000/- on 28/03/2019. Out of this, Rs.
11,50,000/- has been advanced on 29/03/2019 to Fortune Fincorp. Again, there is deposit of Rs.11,50,000/-, which is return of money from Fortune Fincorp on 17/3/2020, which has been advanced on 18/3/2020 to Shri Jitendra Kumar. The assessee has received Rs. 5,00,000/- on 27/5/2021 against credit in the bank account on the same date from Asha Rathod through RTGS. These facts establishes that the depositor was engaged in advancing money to several persons. The multiplicity of transactions establishes the fact that the deposit in the case of the assessee is genuine. Further, the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 16/1/2023 through cheque. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(3)
Balubhai Jivanbhai Narigara : Rs.6,00,000/-(S.No.12)
Copy of bank account with Federal Bank for the period 8/1/2019 to 26/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The perusal of bank account reveals that there are credits in the bank account on 10/2/2019 of Rs.6,00,000, Rs. 2,45,000/- and Rs.

45
3,95,500/-. These amounts have been advanced on 13/2/2019 to Spintex through
RTGS , Rs.12,40,000/-. There is again a credit of Rs. 3,46,500/- on 14/10/2020
and out of this, Rs. 1,96,500/- has been advanced to Jinal Rahul on 17/10/2020. The assessee has received Rs. 6,00,000/- on 26/5/2021 against credit of Rs.
5,99,900/- on 25/5/2021. The above details of multiple transactions fully explain the capacity of the depositor. Further, the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 28/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(4) Bhavnaben Pravin Bhai Vaghani : Rs.6,00,000/-(S.No.18)
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd for the period 19/9/2020 to 26/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is credit of Rs. 5,40,000/- on 09/10/2020 and of Rs. 3,96,000/- on 12/10/2020. Out of this, amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been advanced on 12/10/2020 to Arham Wealth Management. Further, there is another credit of Rs.
3,00,000/- on 13/10/2020 on account of receipt from Gujrati Textiles through
RTGS. The depositor has advanced a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- on this very date to Arham Wealth. Again on 25/5/2021, there is credit in the account of the depositor of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of receipt from Vagani Bhavnaben through RTGS.
Same has been advanced to the assessee on 26/5/2021. Thus, the source of deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- stands fully explained. Further, the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 16/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.

(5) Bhumika Rakeshbhai Prajapati : Rs.6,00,000/- (S.No.19)

Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd for the period 05/01/2019 to 27/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is credit of Rs. 2,88,400/- on 02/04/2019, which has been advanced on 4/4/2019. Again, there is credit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 26/4/2019
through RTGS from P.S. Traders. The depositor has again advanced this amount on 30/04/2019. There is again credit of Rs. 5,45,000/- on 15/9/2020 as received through RTGS from Navadiya Chirag and of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 16/9/2020 from Paresh Ramisha. Out of these receipts, depositor has advanced Rs. 6,00,000/- on 17/9/2020 to Unique Transactions and Rs. 2,00,000/- to Pandav on 19/9/2020. Further, there is receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 26/5/2021 through RTGS from Bhumika and the same has been advanced to the assessee on 27/5/2021. The multiple transactions running into several lacs establish the financial capacity of the depositor. Further, the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 28/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Thus, the deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee is fully explained and the same deserves to be accepted.
(6) Denish Rajendra Kumar Patel (Rs.6,00,000)

46
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd for the period 01/08/2019 to 27/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there are multiple credits on 09/10/2019 totalling to Rs.5,00,000/-., which has been advanced on 10/10/2019 to Paresh R Patel. Again there is credit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 17/10/2019 from Rana N. and Rs. 5,25,000/- has been advanced to Vinov V. Patel on 19/10/2019. The bank account further reveals credit of Rs. 5,25,000/- on 10/08/2020 by way of RTGS from Vinod and the same has been advanced through RTGS to Sai Somnath Deb on 11/8/2020. Again, there are credits on 11/8/2020 of Rs. 5,00,000/- which has again been advanced on 15/9/2020 to Unique Construction through RTGS. The assessee has received
Rs. 6,00,000/- on 27/5/2021 against deposit in the bank account of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 26/5/2021 through RTGS from Daimeco Patel. In view of the aforesaid facts and multiple transactions, the financial capacity of the depositor is well- established. Further, the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 30/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the case of the assessee of Rs.6,00,000/- deserves to be accepted as explained.
(7) Dharmesh Gordhanbhai Raval : Rs.9,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd for the period 31/12/2018 to 27/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is deposit of Rs. 4,90,900/- on 2/4/2019 by way of clearing from Green Design. The depositor has advanced Rs. 5,00,000/- on 8/4/2019 to Mukesh Kanhiyalal Shah. Again there is a credit in the bank account on 9/4/2019
of Rs. 4,00,000/- from Ambaram Bhai Devaliya and this amount has been advanced on 10/04/2019 to Mukesh Kanhialal Shah. There is again a credit for Rs.2,10,500/- on 21/3/2020 which has been advanced to Dipesh Kumar N Adani on 26/3/2020. The account further reveals credits of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 21/9/2020
and the same has been advanced to Mukesh Shah on 24/9/2020. Similarly, there is credit of Rs. 3,46,500/- on 14/10/2020, which has been advanced on 17/10/2020
to Pandav, Rs.1,96,500/-. The account further reveals credit of Rs. 8,99,996/- on 26/5/2021 and this amount has been advanced to the assessee on 27/5/2021. In view of the facts discussed above and the multiple transactions running into several lacs, the financial capacity of the depositor is fully established. Further, the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 28/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. The deposit in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 9,00,000/- stands explained the same deserves to be accepted.
(8)
Dimple Bhargav Bhai Sagarka : Rs.10,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Associate Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the period
5/2/2020 to 1/6/2021is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- on 6/11/2020, which has been advanced on the same date to Meet Enterprises through RTGS. Again, there is receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/- on 5/2/2021 through RTGS from Meet Enterprises and the same has been advanced on 7/2/2021 to Shailesh. The perusal of the bank account further reveals deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 1/6/2021 through RTGS

47
Further, the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 16/1/2023
through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Hence, the deposit in the hands of the assessee of Rs.
10,00,000/- is fully explained and the same deserves to be accepted.
(9)
Dimpleben Chintal Kumar Surati : Rs.5,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Surat District Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period
7/4/2021 to 24/09/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is credit of Rs. 5,27,408/- as receipt from Dhami
Developers on 7/4/2021 and Rs. 5,00,000/- has been advanced on 8/4/2021 to Shreyans Jain. Further, Shreyans Jain has returned the amount on 17/4/2021 and the same has been advanced to the assessee on 19/4/2021. The trail of amount establishes that the source of deposit with the assessee is fully explained.
There are further transactions in the account as credit of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 18/6/2021 and again credit of Rs. 3,38,230/- on 7/7/2021 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 24/9/2021. The depositor has advanced Rs 3,00,000 on 8/7/2021 to Ranchhod
Bhai and Rs. 5,00,000/- to Dharma Impex on 24/9/2021. It is submitted that the bank account establishes the fact that the deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account of the depositor. The multiple transactions running into several lacs also establish beyond doubt the financial capacity of the depositor. Further, the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 31/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper
Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(10)
Dinesh Bhai Raman Bhai Bariya : Rs.9,80,000
Copy of Bank account with Bank of India for the period 1/4/2021 to 14/8/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that there is credit of Rs. 15,65,374/- on 23/6/2021 as received through RTGS from Unique
Const. The amount has been advanced on 25/6/2021 to various parties. There is again a credit of Rs. 4,91,000/- on 27/6/2021 and Rs. 4,90,000/- has been advanced to the assessee on 29/6/2021. Again there is a deposit of Rs.
4,89,000/- in the account on 30/6/2021 through RTGS and on 1/7/2021, Rs.
4,90,000/- has been advanced to the assessee. The multiple transactions running into several lacs establish the financial capacity of the depositor. Further, there are no cash deposits in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.9,80,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 08/02/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. In view of this, the amount deposited with the assessee is fully explained and the same deserves to be accepted.
(11)
Dinesh Bhai Velabhai Bavariya : Rs. 9,11,500/-
Copy of Bank account with Associate Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the period Nov.
2020 to 30/06/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank

48
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO account reveals that there is credit of Rs. 6,00,000/- in Nov. 2020 and the same has been advanced to Meet Enterprises. Again there are credits of Rs. 2,00,000/,
Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- in March, 2021. Out of these deposits, Rs.
10,00,000/- has been advanced in March, 2021 to Rishab. Again there is credit of Rs. 9,11,500/- in June, 2021 as received through RTGS from MK Trading Co., which has been deposited with the assessee. Therefore, the source of amount of Rs. 9,11,500/- is well-established and the same deserves to be accepted. Further, the multiple transactions running into several lacs also establish the financial capacity of the depositor. Further, the loan of Rs.9,11,500/- has been repaid by the assessee on 16/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(12)
Divyesh K Kania : Rs. 5,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank for the period 1/8/2019 to 31/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following credits and debits :-

Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account (Dr.
Narayan Impex
22/10/2019
2,65,000
RN Enterprises
22/10/2019
2,30,000
S&L Impex
24/10/2019
5,00,000
Bhoomik
24/10/2019
5,00,000
S&L Impex
25/10/2019
5,00,000
Apex Traders
19/12/2019
5,00,000
Sanol Impex
20/12/2019
5,00,000
Kania Divya
29/5/2021
5,00,000
Oliria Foods
31/5/2021
5,00,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 28/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. In view of this, deposit with the assessee is fully explained and the same deserves to be accepted.

49
Gelabai Krashnbhai Kateshiyta : Rs 10,50,500/-
Copy of Bank account with Associate Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period
23/4/2021 to 03/03/2022 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals that besides the transaction of deposit with the assessee, the depositor has also advanced Rs.8,00,000/- on 3/3/2022 to FCB Design. Thus, this fact establishes the financial capacity of the depositor. The deposit in the hands of the assessee stands fully explained. Further, the loan of Rs.10,50,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 10/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(14)
Harish Somabhai Parmar : Rs. 7,50,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Bank of India for the period 1/4/2021 to 13/8/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account (Dr.
Unique Construction
12/5/2021
8,25,575

Shah Harsh Rakesh Kr.
17/5/2021

1,75,000
Suresh Bharat Bhai
17/5/2021

1,80,000
Chintan Bhai
17/5/2021

1,90,000
Ashok Damji Bhai
17/5/2021

2,05,000
Ashok Damji Bhai
18/5/2021
2,05,000

Shah Harsh Rakesh Kr
18/5/2021
1,75,000

Chintan Bhai
18/5/2021
1,90,000

Suresh Bharat Bhai
18/5/2021
1,80,000

Oliria Foods
20/5/2021

4,00,000
Oliria Foods
21/5/2021

3,50,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.7,50,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 31/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.

50
Harshaben Ghanshyam Bai Patel : Rs. 9,80,000
Copy of Bank account with Bank of India for the period 11/6/2020 to 07/08/2021
is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Sumangal Infra
7/10/2020
5,54,968

Alpha Infra
8/10/2020

5,00,000
Vara
17/6/2021
11,77,916

Arvindbhai Dhirubhai
19/6/2021

2,50,000
Hariya Vinabehan
19/6/2021

3,00,000
Harvind Kr. Nagardas
19/6/2021

3,00,000
Jitendra Mafatlal
19/6/2021

3,00,000
RTGS PNB
28/6/2021
4,95,000

Oliria Foods
29/6/2021

4,90,000
NEFT Jio
29/6/2021
4,85,000

Oliria Foods
1/7/2021

4,90,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.9,80,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 09/02/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(16)
Jagruti Ben Dinesh Bhai Bariya : Rs. 9,00,000/-

Copy of Bank account with Bank of India for the period 23/4/2021 to 20/06/2021
is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following credits and debits :-

51
18/5/2021
9,36,145

Oliria Foods
20/5/2021

4,50,000
Oliria Foods
21/5/2021

4,50,000
Panchani Ramesh Bhai
17/8/2021
11,98,019

GIT Creations
19/8/2021

1,72,000
Pragati Developers
19/8/2021

4,95,000
Pragati Developers
20/8/2021

4,55,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 16/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(17)
Jayanti Bhai Prajapati : Rs. 6,00,000
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank for the period 01/04/2020 to 31/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Azlon Textiles
14/10/2020
15,00,000

Arham Wealth Management
14/10/2020

5,00,000
Arham Wealth Management
14/10/2020

10,00,00
Ganesh Electricals P. Ltd
2/2/2021
8,41,500

Kavin Kumar Choksi
2/2/2021

8,41,500
Prajapati Jayanti Bhai
29/5/2021
6,00,000

52
31/5/2021

6,00,000
The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 28/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(18)
Jinal Rahul Rajput : Rs. 7,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Surat Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the period
07/11/2019 to 1/6/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account (Dr.
By Clg
30/06/2020
2,50,000

RTGS
Paraesh
Ramjibhai
Patel
16/10/2020
5,15,587

Balubhai Jivanbhai Nariga
17/10/2020
1,96,500

Unique Const
19/10/2020

7,00,000
Tr.
1/6/2021
6,99,675

Oliria Foods
1/6/2021

7,00,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 28/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(19)
Kajal Balubhai Prajapati : Rs. 10,50,000
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya for the period 28/3/2020 to 1/6/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

53
M/s Green Design
2/7/2020
2,00,000

Rahul Bhai
8/7/2020

2,00,000
Gordhan
9/11/2020
3,83,000

Petiga
9/11/2020
1,17,000

Piyush
9/11/2020

5,00,000
Ben Prajapati
1/6/2021
8,00,000

Oliria Foods
1/6/2021

8,00,000
Gordha
1/6/2021
2,00,000

Oliria Goods
1/6/2021

2,50,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.10,50,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 04/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. In view of this, deposit with the assessee is fully explained.
(20)
Kalaben Hareshbhai Prajapati : Rs. 5,00,000
Copy of Bank account with Andhra Bank for the period 27/6/2019 to 09/08/2021
is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account (Dr.
Bhara
11/9/2019
5,00,000

Bharat
12/9/2019

2,00,000
Bharat
12/9/2019

3,00,000
Bhara
16/9/2019
4,00,000

Javan
16/9/2019
5,00,000

Bharat
17/9/2019

3,50,000
Bharat
17/9/2019

2,25,000

54
17/9/2019

3,25,000
Neft SPCEN.
29/5/2021
5,00,000

Oliria
31/5/2021

5,00,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 30/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(21)
Kalpana S. Rathod : Rs. 5,00,000

Copy of Bank account with Federal Bank for the period 15/4/2019 to 1/6/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Ashok Bhai
10/09/2019
5,50,000

Bharat Kanhialal Shah
11/092019

2,50,000
Kanhialal Shah
11/6/2019

3,00,000
Shantiben
16/9/2019
6,00,000

Javanji
16/9/2019
4,00,000

Kanhialal Shah
17/9/2019

2,75,000
Kanhialal Shah
17/9/2019

3,25,000
Kanhialal Shah
17/9/2019

4,00,000
Diamosco
1/6/2021
5,00,000

Oliria
1/6/2021

5,00,000

55
The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 30/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(22)
Mitesh Shah HUF : Rs. 13,00,000

Copy of Bank account with ICICI Bank for the period 15/4/2019 to 1/4/2020 to 13/8/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Paresh Ramjibhai Patel
31/8/2020
5,10,750

Bhagal
1/9/2020

1,45,000
Kalpesh Gamnilal
2/9/2020

1,85,000
Nitesh Bhai Raman Bhai
2/9/2020

1,80,000
Harsidhu Industries
24/12/2020
5,00,000

Bhagal
28/12/2020

2,50,000
Bhagal
29/12/2020

2,60,000
TU Builders
21/4/2021
6,00,000

T. RTGS
22/4/2021
2,00,000

Oliria Foods
23/4/2021

8,00,000
RTGS SPCBR
25/5/2021
4,99,996

Oliria Foods
26/5/2021

5,00,000
G Mistry Associates
13/8/2021
6,98,420

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.13,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 13/02/2023 through banking

56
Prakash Bhai Khimjibai Patel : Rs. 9,50,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Associate Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period
1/12/2020 to 6/9/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account (Dr.
Th. RTGS
1/3/2021
10,00,000

Monica Fab.
1/3/2021

10,00,000
Blue Moon Textiles
3/4/2021
7,00,000

Haripriya
3/4/2021

7,00,000
Shiv Enterprises
5/5/2021
9,52,070

Oliria Foods
5/5/2021

9,50,000
RTGS
6/9/2021
11,30,654

Haripriya
6/9/2021

11,30,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.9,50,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 30/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(24)
Pravinbhai Dhirubhai Prajapati : Rs. 5,00,000
Copy of Bank account with Surat District Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period
5/4/2021 to 4/10/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Dhami Developers
5/4/2021
5,27,319

57
8/4/2021

5,00,000
Shreyans Jain
17/4/2021
5,00,000

Oliria Foods
19/4/2021

5,00,000
Sandeepbhai Jayantbhai
26/8/2021
7,63,190

Pragati Developers
31/8/2021

7,50,000
Unique Const.
30/9/2021
10,00,000

Pragati Dev.
4/10/2021

10,00,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 06/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(25)
Tejabhai Ratanbhai Rajput : Rs. 8,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Associate Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period
30/09/2019 to 25/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Starworld
5/3/2021
10,17,206

Bandhan FTL
6/3/2021

9,00,000
Th. RTGS
6/5/2021
8,00,000

Oliria Foods
25/5/2021

8,00,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.8,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 19/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited

58
Upendra Somabhai Paramar : Rs. 8,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Bank of India for the period 1/4/2021 to 23/8/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Vara
17/6/2021
9,42,333

S.C. Patel
18/6/2021

1,00,000
HS Parmar
18/6/2021

1,00,000
Amruta Enterprises
19/6/2021

45,000
Hemant Kr. Mafatlal
19/6/2021

2,00,000
Ashwani Nagbhai
19/6/2021

2,00,000
Vinod Sambhai
19/6/2021

2,50,000
S.O.L Limited
28/6/2021
4,94,000

Oliria Foods
29/6/2021

4,90,000
S.O.L. Ltd
29/6/2021
4,06,000

Oliria Foods
1/7/2021

4,10,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.8,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 31/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(27)
Variya Kanteben Vikrambhai : Rs. 7,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Karur Vysya Bank for the period 24/8/2020 to 1/6/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-

59
13/10/2020
9,00,000

Tara Patel
13/10/2020
5,00,000

Arham Wealth Management
13/10/2020

8,00,000
Anil Bhai
14/10/2020
1,00,000

Arham Wealth Management
14/10/2020

7,00,000
Variya Kant
1/6/2021
6,99,999

Oliria Foods
1/6/2021

7,00,000

The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 30/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
(28)
Vihabhai Gagabhai Luhar : Rs. 7,00,000/-
Copy of Bank account with Associate Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period
4/12/2020 to 25/5/2021 is available on Paper Book. The examination of the bank account reveals the following major credits and debits :-
Name of party
Date
Deposited in bank account (Cr)
Withdrawn from the bank account
(Dr.
Th.RTGS
23/2/2021
6,00,000

Jalondhara
23/2/2021

6,00,000
RTGS
24/2/2021
8,00,000

Neft Real Stars
24/2/2021

8,00,000
Th. RTGS
1/3/2021
5,00,000

Babu Bhai
5/3/2021

5,00,000
MK Trading
25/5/2021
7,00,000

Oliria
25/5/2021

7,00,000

60
The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. Further, the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- has been repaid by the assessee on 19/1/2023 through banking channel. Copy of ledger account is available on Paper Book page number cited supra. Therefore, the deposit in the hands of the assessee deserves to be accepted.
The above transactions in the bank account establish the financial capacity of the depositor. There are no cash deposits in the bank account. The deposit with the assessee is not the lone transaction in the bank account. In view of this, deposit with the assessee is fully explained.

SCRUTINY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHES GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS
It is submitted that the examination of the bank accounts both of those which were discussed by the Learned Assessing Officer in the assessment order numbering nine and other bank accounts which have been discussed above numbering 28
disclose the following features, which establish that the depositors were genuine and not entry providers. All the depositors were in a capacity a deposit amount with the assessee. These features are discussed hereunder :-
1. It is submitted that assessee is not the only person who has received deposits from the above depositors. The scrutiny of the bank accounts, as discussed above, reveals that most of these depositors have advanced money to big and well-known concerns, like, Arham Wealth Management, Unique
Construction etc. The name of these well-known concerns give credibility to the depositors. It is not the case of the revenue that deposits advanced by these depositors to persons like Arham Wealth Management or Unique Construction was also treated unexplained. It is further submitted that the Learned Assessing
Officer treated the depositors as entry providers just on the basis of assumption and presumption.

61
depositors more on the basis of suspicion, assumption and presumption. It is settled principle of law that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following cases are quoted in support :-
(i)
Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC)
(ii)
CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H)
(iii)
From the discussion made above, it may kindly be seen that :-

(1)
All the creditors are assessed to income and they are borne on the register of the Income Tax Department, having Permanent Account Number.
(2)
In the case of every creditor, the amount has been received through banking channel
(3)
All of them are assessed to income-tax and filing regular returns of income.
(4)
In support of the submissions made above, wherein it has been strongly pleaded that the assessee has received unsecured loans money from persons who are having PAN, who have given the loans through banking channels, the identity of the creditors is not in doubt, they are filing income tax returns regularly, in view of this, the unsecured loan received from them deserves to be accepted as explained, the assessee quotes the following decisions :-
(1)
Income—Cash credit—Burden of proof—Assessee had given the names and addresses of the creditors—It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees—Their index number was in the file of the Revenue—Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further—Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the allowed loans—Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence—
(2)
Aravali Trading Co. V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199 Hon’ble Rajasthan
High Court
The Hon’ble High Court held that once the the existence of the creditors is proved and such person own the credits which are found in the books of the assessee, the assessee's onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him either in terms of section 68 or on general principle.

(3)
Addition u/s 68 not sustainable.
(4)
Income—Cash credit—Burden of proof—Identity of the creditor is established—He has confirmed the loan—Whether the amount was advanced by the alleged

63
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO creditor or not is basically a question of fact—Tribunal is the final fact-finding body—Finding of the Tribunal accepting the genuineness of the loan and deleting the addition could not be said to be perverse.
(5)
Assessee has discharged its onus by furnishing the necessary details such as a confirmation of the parties, copy of ITR- V, copy of bank statement of parties along with their balance sheet, share certificate, MOA, AOA etc. in support of identity of the parties and genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the parties.
Similarly, there is also no dispute to the fact that all the transactions were carried out through the banking channel. What is the inference that flows from a cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid contending facts is that the assessee has discharged its onus imposed under section 68. Accordingly the AO had a suspicion that the investors as discussed above were acting as the conduit for converting the unaccounted money of the assessee in the guise of share capital
/share application money and premium on shares. Conversely the AO has not brought anything on record suggesting amount credited in the books of assessee does not belongs to respective parties but the same belongs to the assessee.

(6)
Balaji Healthcare Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO (ITA No.566&567) dated 30/1/2019
(ITAT, Jaipur)
Where the assessee company had completely explained sources of investments received by it by way of share application money, it had also disclosed identity of such investors and all payments had been received through banking channels, amount of share application money could not be treated as assessee’s undisclosed income under section 68. (9)
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO parties, if required, and where he failed to do so, it could not be a ground to re- open assessment.
In the light of discussion made above, it is clear that the Learned Assessing
Officer was not justified to hold that the depositors were accommodation entry providers without bringing any material on record. The addition made by the ld.
AO is illegal and unjust and based on suspicion, surmises, guesswork and conjectures and the same deserves to be deleted.
Ground No. 5 –
The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
Not pressed.
Your Honor is requested to decide the appeal in favour of the assessee by considering the grounds and submissions made above and oblige.”

65
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO of this the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to admit the additional evidence and consider the same favourably. The following case laws are quoted in support for the admission of the additional evidence.
5. Favourable case laws –
(i)
CIT Vs. Raoraja Hanut Singh 117 Taxman 613 / 252 ITR 0528 : (Raj)
If evidence produced by assessee is genuine, reliable and proves assessee's case than assessee should not be denied opportunity of it being produced even if he first time produces same before appellate authority.
(iv)
Production of additional evidence – assessee taking loans from two creditors –
ITO treating loans as income from undisclosed sources as summons could not be served on creditors – Assessee wanting to prove genuineness of loan by relying on fact that amount borrowed and repaid by cheques. Assessee producing
Where additional evidence sought to be produced before Tribunal was a certificate relating to assessee's claim for deduction of a sum and if was relevant to decide

66
In view of the aforesaid facts and decisions the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the shape of agreement and decide the case favourably.

68
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to kindly admit the additional grounds.

(i)
Copy of confirmation of all cash-creditors.
53-172
(ii)
Copy of Income Tax returns of the cash creditors.
173-286
(iii)
Copy of bank account of the cash creditors through which the amount has been advanced to the assessee.
287-485
(iv)
Copy of ledger account showing repayment of loans to the creditors by the assessee through banking channel.
486-609
(v)
Copy of bank statement of the assessee through which the loan was repaid to the creditors.
610-679

69
10. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee has filed an application for raising the additional ground which are purely in technical in nature and may be admitted. As regards the taking of the loan by the assessee company it was for a business consideration as the assessee was in process to acquire a unit. The money was obtained from the unsecured sources and as that deal of acquire the unit did not materialize all the unsecured loans taken by the assessee were repaid. As is evident from the assessment order that the assessee has submitted all the required document to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction by filling the bank statement, ITR and confirmation. Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) to only 8 parties, all of them have replied out of 120 parties. As is evident from the bank statement of the one or two wherein the those creditors deposited cash and given loan to the assessee and that too was not establish any contrary to the evidence placed on record. Ld. AO made addition on different ground whereas ld. CIT(A) has considered difference aspect of the matter for which he has not given any opportunity to the assessee and has decided the appeal on difference issue for which the assessee was not given proper opportunity and thereby the order of the ld. CIT(A) is deserve to the quashed. So far as the merits of the 70
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO case the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that considering all the evidence placed on record including the additional evidence placed on record the addition made is required to be deleted. Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the assessee has repaid all the unsecured loans taken and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court the addition made is required to be deleted.

71
The first addition is of Rs. 4,59,890/- made by the Learned Assessing
Officer on account of business profit without considering the submission of the assessee that this difference is for sale of assets which was appearing on GST portal and in fact was not regular sale of the assessee. The relevant facts to the issue are that ld. AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has declared sales turnover to the tune of Rs.
19,85,47,600/- whereas as per 26AS details sales turnover declared by the assessee to the GST department was Rs. 19,90,07,490/-. Hence there was a difference of Rs. 4,59,890/- between the turnover declared by the assessee in its ROI filed with the revenue and turnover declared by the assessee in its GSTR-3B return filed with GST department.
Ld. AO alleged that the assessee did not provide any justification as to why there was a difference in turnover declared by it in Income tax return and GST return. Thus, the assessee was asked to reconcile and explain the difference by issue of show cause notice. In reply to the Show Cause
Notice dated 21.02.2024, the assessee submitted that the difference was due to sale of fixed assets which was shown in books under the relevant head of 'Fixed Assets' in Balance sheet and thereby reconciled that turnover figure. Ld. AO noted that the assessee did not furnish any supporting documents in support of its claim. In the absence of any 72
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO conclusive documentary evidence and since the assessee has already claimed the expenditure incurred during the year, the difference in turnover, i.e. Rs. 4,59,890/- was added back to the returned income of the assessee.
When the matter carried to ld. CIT(A) he has confirmed the addition by holding that “I find there is no reflection of sale of fixed assets in the profit &
loss account in the I.T Return. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO in making addition of difference of Turnover i.e.
Rs.4,59,890/- with the returned total income.”
While arguing ground no. 2 the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that neither the lower authority has appreciated the facts of the case nor commented upon as to why the reconciliation of turnover as reflected in the GST record and in the books is not correct. But he simply confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,59,890/- on the ground that sales disclosed in the trading account (audited) was only Rs.19,84,96,990/- whereas in the GST return, the same was Rs. 19,90,07,490/-.
While assessment proceedings, the discrepancy was explained by the assessee stating that this was because there were sales of Rs.
5,10,500/- of fixed assets, which was not part of trading account. A chart reconciling the discrepancy was submitted during assessment proceedings,

73
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO which has been reproduced by the Learned Assessing Officer at page 5 of the assessment order which is reproduced herein below:-

Both the lower authority confirmed that addition on the grounds that the assessee could not support this contention with the evidence and therefore, the difference of turnover was added as income of the assessee.
The above reconciliation so relied and available on record shows that both the turnover will never match as the GST records shows the business sales plus capital assets sales. Whereas in income tax turnover for business sales is routed through the Profit and loss account and sale of capital

74
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO assets is adjusted in the fixed assets balance in the balance sheet. Thus, ld. AO derived the difference of Rs. 4,59,890/- plus other income of Rs.
50,605/- as reflected in the above chart if added the actual difference to Rs.
5,10,495/- and the assessee shows they sold the vibrating machine sales and electric transformers for that amount of Rs. 5,10,500/- as reflected.
Thus while reconciling the turnover of the GST both records need to be considered which is getting verified from the records already placed on record. Therefore, we see no reasons to confirm that addition and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted. Based on this observation, ground no. 2
raised by the assessee is allowed.

75
Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited vs. ITO and creditworthiness of the lenders were not established. While in assessment proceeding ld. AO to test check those loan creditors a letter u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to 8 persons, out of 120 creditors. In that letter issued to those 8-person ld. AO asked them to provide the ledger of the assessee in their books of account, bank statement along with other details were sought and the compliance was to be made by 10.02.2024. In response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, replies have been received from all the above 8 persons.
On examination of the bank account statement of the lenders, ld. AO noticed that lending of unsecured loan to the assessee is done in an unusual manner and thereby he discussed all that observation in the assessment order that there are transaction of exact value or near to the value is deposited in the lender's bank account and immediately transferred to the bank account of the assessee. He also noted that all the transactions in the bank account of the lender were very small monetary value, and they have filed the ITR in the range of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. ITR and bank account statement of some of the lenders submitted by the assessee were reproduced in the order of the assessment vide page 6 to 28 by the ld.
Therefore, it is reasonably concluded that the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 10,24,75,690/- are nothing but accommodation entries. Having observed so ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 21.02.2024 and the assessee furnished the reply on 04.03.2024. Ld. AO considered the reply of the assessee and found that the same were not acceptable based on those reasons as discussed herein above. Hence, he holds that the transaction of accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.
10,24,75,690/- during the A.Y. 2022-23 and was added as the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act.
When the matter was carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition on a different ground holding that the assessee failed to specify the purpose of loans without affording any opportunity to the assessee. Ld.
CIT(A) also taken a view to confirm that the addition is required to be confirmed as the assessee failed to explain the phenomenal fall in Gross profit and net profit without affording any opportunity to the assessee in this regard and he has not discussed as to whether the addition made u/s. 68 is 77
The assessee in support of the ground [ including the additional ground ] submitted that the assessee proved that legal liability casted upon by the Act so as to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were proved by placing on record the confirmation [ paper book page 53-
172], bank statement [ paper book page 287-485] and ITR [ paper book page 173-286] which will prove the primary burden cast upon the assessee.
The assessee filed all the document by a paper book and ld. AO through the ld. DR did not object on any of the records and therefore, there is no reason to that the assessee has not filed all the records to prove the burden cast upon them. Even ld. AO issued 133(6) letters asking for the details which were complied by all the 8 parties out of 120 depositors details available with the ld. AO. The assessee further submitted that the use of funds obtained by way of unsecured loans were required to be used for acquiring an unit which was available on stress sale. But since the deal could not be materialized the assessee repaid those amounts so taken and for that ledger accounts were placed on record [ paper book page 486-609].
The assessee has also placed on record copy of bank account from where those loans were repaid [ paper book page 610-679]. Even the assessee placed on record the purpose of the taking huge loan by placing on record the agreement with Nakshatra Corporate Advisers Private Limited [ page

79
688-693] and ledger account [ page 694-698] as additional evidence so as to counter the other finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee used the fund to reduce the gross profit and net profit because ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon the evidence so submitted about all the unsecured loan creditors. The bench feels that the additional evidence so filed is in support of the contention already on record. Thus, we admit those additional evidence and considered to decide the appeal because ld. CIT(A) has not given an opportunity to the assessee on this matter those record were not filed. As repayment issue is already discussed by the ld. CIT(A) [ page 85
last para] those records were not considered as additional evidence. As is evident from the record that the assessee has repaid all those unsecured loans which proves that loans were taken from the identified persons /
entities. Ld. CIT(A) has not commented upon as to why and how when the assessee has placed on record all the documents which are required under law are not correct and he went on to confirm the addition on difference facts shows that even he has not commented on the veracity of the evidence placed on record. Considering the overall facts placed on record and as relied by the ld. AR of the assessee on the decision our own Hon’ble
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co. V/s ITO (2008) 8
DTR (Raj) 199 wherein High Court held that ;

80
Thus, we note that the assessee has proved discharge their burden and the revenue could not bring anything contrary no addition can be sustained as held by our own High Cout. Looking to the other aspect as argued that that the assessee has repaid all the unsecured loan so taken and therefore, even as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd [2024] 164
taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) has held that ;
3. It is apparent from a review of the record that at both stages of appeals preceding this Appeal, there were concurrent findings of fact in favour of the assessee, namely, that the genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions cannot be questioned. In a nutshell, the Impugned Order notes that the assessee has submitted all the evidence to substantiate the loans in question, including confirmation from the creditors.
That apart, the loans were taken and repaid through banking channels. The ITAT has also ruled that bank statements too substantiate the same. So also, the lender has not deposited any cash into his bank accounts. Both the rounds of appeals prior to this Appeal have held that the assessee has duly discharged the onus of proving the identity of the lenders, credit-worthiness and all supporting evidence as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").

Respectfully following the judgment as referred and evidence placed on record we see no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 10,24,75,690/-.
Thus, ground no. 3 & 4 and additional ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2025. ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½
¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi)
(Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 17/04/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1531/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत