ACIT Vs Sunil Giridhar Raheja HUF (ITAT Mumbai)
AO made addition of ₹50 lakh u/s 68 treating loans from alleged entry operators (Sampada Chemicals Ltd. & P. Saji Textiles Ltd.) as accommodation entries based on Investigation Wing report. CIT(A) deleted the addition.
ITAT held:
- AO relied only on third-party information: No independent verification of bank statements or transactions
- Addition partly beyond scope of reopening: Reasons recorded were only for one party, but addition made for two
- CIT(A) also erred: Deleted addition without conducting proper verification
Both authorities failed to examine:
- Loan transactions
- Repayment details
- Supporting evidences
Accordingly, entire issue restored to CIT(A) for:
- Proper verification of documents
- Passing a speaking order on merits after opportunity
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
Present appeal filed by revenue arises out of the order dated 29/09/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2013-14, on the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 68, ignoring that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to establish the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction as mandated under Section 68?”
2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in disregarding specific material and statements collected by the Investigation Wing indicating that the assessee received accommodation entries, thereby vitiating the finding of deletion of addition under Section 68?”
3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 68 by holding that bank-routed transactions are sufficient proof of genuineness, contrary to settled law that mere banking transactions do not establish genuineness or creditworthiness?”
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.”
2. The assessee is an HUF and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2013, declaring total income at Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 12/07/2018 based on information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai. The Ld. AO noted that, as per the information received, the assessee was beneficiary of bogus entries from certain companies which were considered to be paper companies managed by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt and his related entities. The Ld. AO, therefore, formed a belief that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment.
