GEETA BABU SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

4. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of 2,55,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without considering the statement of Praveen Agarwal recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act by the DDITS(INV.) Kolkata whererin he admitted that these shell entities used to provide accommodation entries to the beneficiaries by rotating the funds through intermediary companies and earned commission for the same"

"Para 7.3. Having decided the technical/legal grounds, I proceed to decide the issue on merits. Appellant has raised the ground no 5, in which he has challenged the addition of Rs 2,55,00,000/- on merits. It has made the submission in support of its argument. In the assessment order, AO has narrated the circumstances that led to the addition of Rs 2,55,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Notices u/s. 133(6) were issued to the three lender companies through e-mail as well through speed post. The said notices issued u/s. 133(6) sent through speed post were returned/unserved by the postal authorities. However, the reply of the same was received by post and mail. In order to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the assessee was asked to produce the lender parties for verification. However, the said parties were not produced by the appellant. Instead that appellant had, vide its letter dt. 24.12.2019, furnished the confirmation and copies of Return of Income and its enclosures. AO has not accepted theexplanation provided by the appellant and has held that the unsecured loans of Rs 2,55,00,000/- from the three parties have not been explained by the appellant. Said amount has been added as deemed income u/s 68 of the Act. On the other hand, the appellant has argued that it had provided all the necessary details required to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction and has therefore, discharged the onus cast u/s 68 of the Act. It is argued that the appellant was not provided opportunity to cross examine the witness, whose statement was recorded by the investigation wing. Para 7.3.1. I have considered the submission of the appellant and the discussion made in the assessment order. Appellant has furnished confirmation from all the three parties, copy of return of income, audited financial statements bank statement in which the transactions are reflected. The important financial parameters in support of the creditworthiness of the lender companies are tabulated below- Para 7.3.2. Section 68 is deeming fiction dealing with the burden of proof. Section 68 provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an asseseee and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in opinion of the assessing officer satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged as income for the previous year. Once the appellant provides the required explanation, the onus shifts on the assessing officer to prove that the same is not satisfactory. In this case, I find that the appellant has submitted its explanation and provided the documentary evidence to prove the identity and net worth of the lenders and the genuineness of the transaction. The onus then shifts to the assessing officer to prove that the said explanation is not satisfactory. It is seen that the assessing officer has not recorded any observation on the documents submitted by the appellant. AO has reiterated and relied on the findings of the investigation wing based on which the case was reopened. Regarding the findings of the investigation wing, it is seen that the name of the appellant does not figure in the information provided by the investigation wing. No attempt is seen to be made to establish fund trail from the appellant to the entry providers. The only new findings given in the assessment order is that the notices u/s 133(6) were returned by the post unserved and that the appellant had not produced the said parties before him. The finding that the notices were returned unserved or the parties were not produced for verification cannot be the only ground for treating the loans as unexplained.

Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Para 7.3.3. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in light of various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, I hold that the appellant has discharged its onus u/s. 68 of the Act. I do not agree with the findings of the AO that the said unsecured loan is unexplained. Fact that the entire loan has been repaid back in later years, goes in favour of the appellant Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,55,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Para 7.3.4. Ground no 4 & 5 are hereby allowed. Para 7.4. Ground no 6 is on initiation of penalty. Same is dismissed as being premature. Ground no 7, being technical ground is not adjudicated. Para 8. Appeal is allowed."

Lender Company Name PAN Documents submitted Parameshwar AAECP9821B Loan Confirmation, ITR Merchandise Pvt Ltd Acknowledgement, Audited Financial, Sampark Advisory AAJCS1019D Bank Statement, Form Services Pvt Ltd 16A (TDS) MCA Master Subhdristi Complex Pvt AAMCS5113K Data Ltd However, till the conclusion of the assessment proceedings the AO had not been able to discredit any of the above evidences brought on record. Thus in this way the assessee had satisfactorily discharged the onus cast upon him. But on the contrary, the AO could not point of any defect in the said documents, but had doubted the transactions only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that too, on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and without providing any opportunity of cross examination to the assessee with regard to the basis of such doubt and even no contrary

Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Apart from the above, we are also of the view that once assessee had discharged its burden than other reasons of non appearance of lender before AO would not negate the case of the assessee. On this preposition reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Archid Industries Pvt Ltd in dated 5th July 2017 wherein it was held that the Tribunal has considered that the Assessee has produced on record the documents to establish the genuineness of the party such as PAN of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money. The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee. In the case of ITO vs Neelkanth finbuild LTD (2009) ITA No 2821/ DEL honorable tribunal has held that once identity of creditor is proved than it is not the business of assessee to find out the source of the money of credit to account.

Income tax appellate tribunal, bench "с", Kolkata :- for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in case of Nived Anoopkumar Dhandhania, v/s I.T.O. was held that C.I.T.(Appeals) erred and acted injudiciously in Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. doubting the genuineness of and confirming the addition of unsecured loans from five parties to the appellant's total income though the transactions are entered through banking channels and the assessee has discharged its onus of identification of the creditors with PAN Nos., copies of balance sheet and bank statements.

CBDT Circular No. F. No.286/2/2003/IT(inv) dated 11.03.2003 has directed its offices to focus on collection of evidence on undisclosed income and not on obtaining confession of undisclosed income and to make addition. (3) We The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Lovely Exports 6 DTR 308 it has held if there is bogus share holders and their name are appearing in books than department is free to reopen individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/c Creative World Telefilms Ltd.333 ITR 100 has held as under: "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders who's name are given to the Assessing Officer then the department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no dispute that the assessee had given the details of names and addresses of Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the shareholders, their PAN/GIR numbers and had also given the cehque numbers, name of the bankers. The assessing officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account holders, Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted.

The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) has held as under: "That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessee's. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they are creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so- called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the respondent could not do anything further. In the premises, If the tribunal came to the conclusion that the Respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence".

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. [2006] 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.) where assessee-company had received share application money from a company and from an individual investor through banking channels and had furnished confirmation of investment in share capital by said company and had also proved existence of said individual investor, it could be said that assessee had proved genuineness of said transaction and, therefore, it is held, assessing officer cannot make any addition to income of assessee in respect of said share application money by treating same as unexplained cash credit under section 68.

CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income.

Sr. Name of the Party Addition of loan Disallowance of No. taken under interest paid on section 68 loan under section 69C (Amount in INR) 1 Abhilasha Export Pvt. Ltd. 45,00,000 3,84,247 2 Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. 30,00,00 1,56,575 3 Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. -- 3,00,000 4 Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. -- 1,12,500 Ltd Total 75,00,000 9,53,322 4.1. In the set aside proceedings, assessee was asked to submit the details and documents to prove the genuineness of the loans and details of their repayment. Ld. Assessing Officer also issued notices u/s. 133(6) to all the four lenders, two from whom fresh loans were taken, totalling to Rs.75 lakhs and the other two in whose case interest expenditure was added u/s. 69C. Out of the four parties, only one, i.e. Link Point Infrastructure Limited complied with the said notice. Assessee was also asked to produce the four lender parties for verification for which it expressed its inability by stating that parties won't comply with this request as the loans have already been repaid. On this, assessee requested the ld. Assessing Officer to issue summons to the said parties for necessary verification required by him. ld. Assessing Officer took an adverse view on expression of this inability by the assessee. He relied on the findings of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal where it was held that the said companies were used for providing accommodation entries and thus, completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.75 lakhs as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 and of Rs.9,53,322/- as unexplained expense u/s.69C.

4.2. In order to establish the identity and credit worthiness of the lender parties and genuineness of the transactions, assessee submitted all the corroborative documentary evidences which are placed on record. Details of the same is listed below: A. Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. i. Copy of assessee bank statements highlighting the bank transaction for loan ii. Copy of acknowledgement of return filed by Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. iii. Copy of loan conformation iv. Copy of financial of Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd.

B. Abhilasha Exports Pvt. Ltd. i. Copy of assessee bank statements highlighting the bank transaction for loan ii. Copy of acknowledgment of return filed for Abhilash ExportsPvt. Ltd. iii. Copy of loan conformation iv. Copy of financial of Abhilasha Export Pvt. Ltd.

4.3. On these set of documents and details furnished by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any further enquiries so as to bring on record the evidences to establish that the loans were not genuine which would have met the compliance requirement of the direction of the coordinate bench so given. ld. CIT(A) analysed the documents and details furnished by the assessee for each of the lender parties and arrived at a conclusion that assessee has discharged its onus adequately as contemplated u/s. 68.The observations and findings of the ld. CIT(A) on each of the parties is extracted below. “7.4. From the details, it is seen that the lender M/s Abhilasha exports Pvt ltd has shown returned income of Rs 10,56,608/-for the AY 2011-12. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 17,36,86,659/-. As on 1/4/2010, there is a debit balance of Rs 35,22,192/- in the name of appellant in the books of the lender company. The amount of Rs 45,00,000/- has advanced to the appellant company by cheque on 30/7/2010. Interest of Rs 181,880/- and Rs 74,434/- has been paid by the appellant company on 6/1/2011. Further the appellant company has paid repaid an amount of Rs 60,00,000/- on 6/1/2011. i.e. in the same financial year. The closing balance as on 31/3/2011 is Rs 20,89,508/-. This amount has been repaid in FY 2011-12. The lender company has sufficient funds in the bank at the time of the advancing the loan.

7.5. In the case of the other lender M/s Alishan Estates Pvt ltd, the returned income for AY 2011-12 is Rs 4,41,908/-. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 36,34,78,814/-/-. The amount of Rs 30,00,000/- has advanced to the appellant company by RTGS on 28/4/2010. Interest of Rs 1,56,575/- has been has been paid by the appellant company on 6/1/2011. TDS of Rs 15658/- has been deducted. The appellant company has paid repaid an amount of Rs 30,00,000/- on 6/1/2011. i.e. in the same financial year. I am of the view that the appellant has provided the documents in support of genuineness of the loan.”

5.1. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the loans taken by the assessee have been repaid which has been established with corroborative documentary evidences. The stand taken by the assessee expressing its inability to produce the parties is justifiable and reasonable as the parties need not turn up once their loans have been repaid. Accordingly, the stand taken by the assessee u/s.133(6) and non-production of the lender parties is not a justifiable basis for making the addition. Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. Assessing Officer to disprove the documentary evidences placed on record and point out deficiencies or defects in the same. These documents evidently speak about the identity and credit worthiness of the lender companies as well as the genuineness of the transaction undertaken by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has considered all these factors and has held in favour of the assessee as the onus casted u/s. 68 has been adequately discharged. Loans have been repaid along with interest on which TDS has been done.There is no new evidence or record placed on the file to prove that the loans are not genuine.

5.2. In respect of addition made u/s. 69C towards interest expense on these loans, since the loans from the two lenders namely, Abhilasha Export Pvt. Ltd. and Alishan Estates Pvt. Ltd. have been upheld to be genuine and the addition so made has been deleted, the interest on the same is also an allowable expenditure and the addition so made u/s. 69C is not justified.

5.3. In respect of interest to the other two parties, it is noted that the loans were not taken in the year under consideration, but are opening balance from the earlier years. No addition has been made u/s.68 in respect of these loans from Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Link point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Further, assessee has placed on record relevant documents to establish the genuineness of these parties. Thus, the interest expenditure on the outstanding loan brought forward as an opening balance in the year under consideration cannot be said to be non-genuine and the interest so paid is an allowable expenditure. Interest paid by the assessee is through proper banking channel and required TDS has been done. Considering overall facts of the case and documentary evidences placed on record, the addition so made in respect of loan taken during the year u/s.68 and interest expense u/s.69C are deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld.

5.4. In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed.

6.1. Additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer are on three counts. First, unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-;second, unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs. 73,00,000/-; and third, unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of Rs.18,26,044/-.It is worth noting that not only the addition has been made for loan taken by the assessee during the year, but also on the repayment of the loans. In this assessment year, case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata on the findings of the search action in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal group. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee is one such beneficiary company who had entered into transactions of accommodation entries with the concerns of Praveen Agarwal group and thus, the assessment was completed by making the aforesaid additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had furnished elaborate details along with documentary evidences for each of the parties for which addition has been made either u/s. 68 or section69 or section 69C. The details so furnished by the assessee are taken note of by ld. CIT(A) in his order in a tabulated form. The same is extracted below for ready reference:

6.2. From the above table, it is noted that exhaustive details were furnished on record and the same forms part of the paper book placed before us. The index of the paper book containing the aforesaid details is reproduced for ready reference:

6.3. Ld. Assessing Officer did not point out any deficiency or defect in the details so furnished by the assessee. However, assessee was asked to produce the parties in person for verification which assessee could not. This led to an adverse view taken by the ld. Assessing Officer for making the addition. However, ld. CIT(A) analysed and examined the details so furnished by the assessee and recorded his observations for each of the parties. The observations made in respect of the four parties from whom loans were taken during the year and addition was made u/s. 68 aggregating to Rs.1,45,00,000 are reproduced for ready reference: A. Sampark Advisory Services Pvt ltd has returned income of Rs 14,078/-. It has shown reserves and surplus of Rs 49,50,90,580/-and turnover of Rs 30,37,67,187/-. Amount of Rs 60,00,000/- has be received by appellant through RTGS on 24/11/2011. Interest of Rs 1,96,721/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 19,672/- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 7/2/2013, 12/2/2013 and 4/2/2014. B. Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt ltd has returned income of Rs 3,68,742/-. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 88,65,59,378/-and turnover of Rs 53,96,61,749/- .Amount of Rs 10,00,000/- has is received through RTGS on 10/06/2011. Interest of Rs 60,656/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 6,066- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 13/2/2014. C. Shridhan Jewellery Pvt ltd has returned income of Rs 73,408/-for the AY 2012-13. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 493,69,44,898/-and turnover of Rs 25,36,00,074/-. Amount of Rs 25,00,000/- has is received through RTGS on 26/05/2011. Interest of Rs 1,59,324/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 15,932/- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 3/2/2014. D. NeelkamalDealcomm Pvt Ltd has returned income of Rs 3,69,708/-. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 88,19,06,966/-and turnover of Rs 50,20,54,673/-. Amount of Rs 50,00,000/- is received by RTGS on 27/05/2011. Interest of Rs 3,17,623/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 31,762/- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 11/1/2014 and 13/1/2014.

7.1. In respect of addition of Rs.18,26,044/-u/s. 69C, it is noted that the same represents interest on the unsecured loans taken from 9 parties by the assessee. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, since these loans were treated as non-genuine, the interest payment thereon was added as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C.

7.2. Ld. CIT(A) has given his fact-based findings on the submissions made by the assessee. From the perusal of the same, it is noted that out of the 9 parties, loan from four parties namely Skylight Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Jagaddhatri Deelcom Pvt.Ltd., Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Link Point Infrastructure Pvt .Ltd. were taken in the earlier years. No addition was made u/s.68 in respect of loans taken from these four parties in the earlier years. Their loan balances are coming as opening balance in the year under consideration. Assessee has paid interest on these opening balances of the loans to these four parties which was subjected to TDS. These transactions are adequately reported and disclosed in the books of accounts. Furthermore, these loans along with interest have been repaid in the subsequent year for which documentary evidences are placed on record. Considering overall facts of the case and documentary evidences placed on record, the addition so made in respect of loans taken during the year u/s.68 are deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld.

7.3. In respect of the other four parties wherein the additions were made u/s. 68 for loans taken during the year, the same have been held to be genuine and the addition so made u/s.68 has been deleted. These four parties are Samparg Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., ShridhanJewelryPvt. Ltd. and Neel Kamal Deelcom Pvt. Ltd. Since unsecured loans from these parties has been treated as genuine, the interest payment on the same are also held to be genuine and allowable. Addition so made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69C is not justified and is deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld.

7.4. In respect of unsecured loan from Abhilasha Exports, the said loan has been treated as genuine while adjudicating appeal for Assessment Year 2011- 12 in the above paragraphs. The addition made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.68 in that Assessment Year has been deleted. Accordingly, interest on the said loan added by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69C stands deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld.

7.5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances as discussed above, the entire addition of Rs.18,26,044/- u/s.69C towards interest expense on unsecured loans is deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld.

8.1. Provisions of section 69 are applicable only if any investment is found to be made outside the books of accounts. In the present case, the repayments of unsecured loan have been made through the bank account of the assessee and are duly recorded in the books. Accordingly, the addition so made by the ld. Assessing Officer, treating these repayments of loan as unexplained investment u/s.69 are deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are upheld.

8.2. Considering the above discussion and factual matrix and the details and documents placed on record and adequately examined and verified by ld. CIT(A) to give his fact-based findings, the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 2012-13 are deleted and the findings so arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are upheld.

10.1. From the above tabulated details, it is noted that assessee repaid the loans taken by it in the preceding years from six parties. The additions made in respect of these parties in the preceding years i.e., 2011-12 and 2012-13, specially in the case of Sampark Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and Neelkamal Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. have been upheld to be genuine and the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.68 in Assessment Year 2012-13 has already been deleted in terms of our above observations and findings by upholding the findings of ld. CIT(A). In the present year, assessee has made the repayment of these loans, taken in the earlier years and therefore, cannot be treated as a transaction u/s.69 to hold them as un-explained investments.

10.2. In respect of repayment of loan to Skylight Distributions Pvt. Ltd., we have already given our observations and findings, while dealing with the same party in Assessment Year 2012-13, when part repayment was made. In the year under consideration, assessee has repaid amount of Rs.62 lakhs for which addition has been made u/s.69. Our observations and findings given in respect of this party in Assessment Year 2012-13 applies mutatis mutandis in this year. Furthermore, in respect of the other two parties, namely, Jagadhatri DealcommPvt. Ltd. and Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd., it is noted that the loans were taken by the assessee in the earlier years, which have not been added u/s.68 by the Revenue. In the year under consideration, assessee has only repaid the unsecured loans from the two parties taken in the earlier years. Corroborating all the documentary evidences placed on record, it is not a case of unexplained investments falling within the meaning u/s.69, all these loans and their subsequent repayments are have been duly recorded in the books of accounts in their respective years and therefore, the primary condition for applying section 69 is not satisfied.

10.3. The details of documentary evidences in respect of each of the six parties furnished by the assessee before the authorities below are placed in the paper book. The index of the paper book is reproduced for ready reference:

12.1. Considering the overall factual matrix and the documentary evidences placed on record, corroborated by explanations furnished which has been adequately analysed by ld. CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of ld. CIT(A), to uphold the deletion so made.

14.1. From the perusal of the aforesaid decisions, we draw force for upholding the findings arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) in all the three appeals.

14.2. We also draw our force from the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 58 (Pan) wherein it was held that once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of the subscriber companies (lender companies in the present case), the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer.

14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case ofCIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom)wherein it was held as under: “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The Assessing Officer did nothing except issuing summons which were ultimately returned back with an endorsement "not traceable". The Assessing Officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach the shareholders since all the relevant material details and particulars were given by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. No substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.''

Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence keeping in view the decisions of the coordinate Benches and while adhearing to the principles of judicial consistency and judicial discipline, we uphold the decision of deletion of addition made u/s 68 of the Act by AO and accordingly the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is upheld.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Mumbai: Dated: 12/01/2026 KRK, Sr. PS.