Bhavika Ravi Sukhija Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Advance for Flat or Accommodation Loan? ITAT Mumbai Remands Section 68 Addition to AO for Fresh Examination with One Final Opportunity
ITAT Mumbai (B Bench) in Bhavika Ravi Sukhija vs ACIT (ITA No. 5220/Mum/2025, AY 2016-17, order dated 24.12.2025) has set aside the additions of ₹20 lakh u/s 68 and ₹60,000 u/s 69C and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to establish the true nature of the receipt.
The case arose out of search u/s 132 in the Ashish Begwani group, alleged to be an accommodation-entry racket. Based on third-party Excel sheets and statements, proceedings u/s 153C were initiated against the assessee, treating ₹20 lakh received from Maa Vaishnavi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. as an unexplained cash credit (accommodation loan) and estimating 3% commission u/s 69C. CIT(A) confirmed both additions, rejecting the assessee’s plea that the amount was merely a token advance for proposed sale of a flat.
Before ITAT, the assessee reiterated that the amount was an advance against property sale, later refunded through banking channels, and not a loan. However, the Tribunal noted that:
- No contemporaneous agreement for sale, board resolution, or financials of the payer company were placed on record
- The character of the receipt (loan vs advance) goes to the root of s.68 applicability
- The issue cannot be conclusively decided without deeper factual verification
In the interest of justice, ITAT held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate her claim with cogent, contemporaneous evidence such as payer’s books, board resolutions, agreements, bank records and correspondence. Since the commission addition u/s 69C is purely consequential, it was also restored.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
