Mohit Bharatiya Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Entire ₹14.5 Cr Loan Additions -Revenue Loses in Section 68 Dispute- Once Assessee Provides PAN, Bank & ITR of Lenders, Onus Shifts to Revenue
The case involved cross appeals – the assessee challenging additions sustained, & the Revenue challenging relief granted by CIT(A), in respect of various unsecured loans assessed u/s 68.
AO had reopened assessment based on suspicious transaction reports from Saraswat Bank, & made additions aggregating ₹14.51 crore on account of loans/credits from six parties – Anoop Saxena (₹5 lakh), Arvind Parikh (₹20 lakh), Lucky Motors (₹10.14 lakh), Mumbadevi Bullion (₹13.71 crore), Rakhi Parikh (₹30 lakh), & Sanjeev Malhotra (₹14 lakh) – along with small additions for LIC payment & drawings.
CIT(A) gave partial relief. He deleted additions for loans from Arvind Parikh, Mumbadevi Bullion & Rakhi Parikh, but sustained those from Anoop Saxena, Lucky Motors & Sanjeev Malhotra. Both sides appealed.
Tribunal noted that assessee had furnished confirmations, PAN, bank statements & ITRs of lenders. Transactions were routed through banking channels & repayments were made in subsequent years. For Mumbadevi Bullion, the issue was already covered in assessee’s own favour by ITAT in earlier AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13, where identical loans were held genuine. For Arvind Parikh & Rakhi Parikh, sufficient documents established identity, genuineness & creditworthiness, & AO had not rebutted them. Following Bombay HC rulings in Paradise Inland Shipping & Orchid Industries, & SC in Orissa Corporation, ITAT held that once assessee discharges initial onus, burden shifts to Revenue to disprove, which was not done. Hence, Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
