Piyush Ashok Mehta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Sec 68 Addition Deleted – Assessee Discharged Onus; AO Relied Only on Suspicion & Third-Party Material
Assessee faced addition of ₹20 lakh (AY 2009-10) & ₹8 lakh (AY 2010-11) u/s 68 towards unsecured loans from Cartier Gems, based on survey findings in group cases alleging accommodation entries. CIT(A) upheld additions.
Before ITAT, assessee demonstrated that complete evidences were furnished including loan confirmations, PAN, bank statements, financials & reply u/s 133(6) from lender. It was contended that AO made addition merely relying on investigation findings without independent verification.
ITAT held that:
- Assessee had fully discharged initial onus u/s 68 (identity, creditworthiness & genuineness)
- AO did not conduct further enquiry or find defects in documents
- Addition based on mere suspicion & third-party material is unsustainable
- Identical issue in group concern (Landmark Realty) already decided in favour of assessee & affirmed by Bombay HC
Applying principle of parity, ITAT deleted additions for both years.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. These are two appeals preferred by the same Assessee involving identical issues. The appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of common order.
1.1. ITA No.9091/Mum/2025 has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 13/10/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 20/04/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2009-2010.
