DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD V. TECHNO INDUSTRIES, AHMEDABAD

ITA 659/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad as the appellant and Techno Industries as the respondent. The dispute arose from the reassessment of the respondent's income for the Assessment Year 2014-15, where the Assessing Officer suspected that the respondent had availed bogus accommodation entries in the form of loans and advances. The Assessing Officer treated the repayment of these loans as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not provided satisfactory evidence to substantiate the claim of bogus transactions and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793571 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: BANDISH SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.659/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Vs. Techno Industries, Plot No.613, Phase IV GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad-382245. [PAN :AACFT1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short) dated 22.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing hoists and cranes for more than 25 years. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 24.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.50,27,956/-. The return was initially processed under section 143(1), and subsequently assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.12.2016, assessing income at Rs.50,30,260/-. Subsequently, based on information received from the Investigation Wing , the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the assessee had availed bogus accommodation entries in the form of loans and advances and claimed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 659/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– repayment thereof including interest during AY 2014-15. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- during FY 2011-12, and repaid a sum of Rs.51,12,192/- during the relevant year. The Assessing Officer concluded that since the original loan was a bogus accommodation entry, its repayment was also not genuine, and thus treated the repayment amount of Rs.51,12,192/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the materials on record, deleted the addition. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of any satisfactory explanation and cogent documentary evidence relating to the impugned loans/advances. 6. The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that, as rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A), the loan in question was taken during FY 2011-12 and the amount repaid during the relevant year was through banking channels, duly supported by ledger accounts, bank statements, and TDS certificates on interest payment. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely on the basis of generalized statements made by various third parties in the course of search proceedings in unrelated cases, and no specific reference to the assessee was found in those statements. The Ld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 659/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide copies of the relied upon statements or documentary evidence to the assessee, nor was any opportunity of cross-examination afforded to the assessee, despite specific requests made. The Ld. AR also argued that the denial of cross- examination constitutes violation of principles of natural justice, and hence the reliance on such third-party statements without confrontation was not sustainable in law. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has diligently provided all necessary documents, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and TDS challans, to substantiate the legitimacy of the transaction. It is crucial to emphasize that the onus to prove the transaction as bogus lies with the Assessing Officer. However, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has failed to meet this burden. The Ld. CIT(A) held in both the show cause and Assessment orders, the Assessing Officer solely relied on statements from various individuals and findings from the Investigation Wing without providing concrete evidence to support the allegation of the transaction being bogus. Having gone through the facts on record, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 25.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 659/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 4– आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 23.09.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 23.09.2025 3. Other Member …..23.09.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S ….24.09.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement …25.09.25 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ….25.09.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ….25.09.25 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "