DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA V. M/S BRIGHT BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 4106/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of M/s Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., concerning the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were related to unsecured loans received from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that these loans were bogus and the entities were shell companies. However, the CIT(A) found the loans to be genuine based on the evidence provided, including the financial statements and bank transactions of the lender companies. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case involving M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd., upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789565 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CIT-III, Pune vs Singhad Education Society, Pr.CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sreeleathers, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Dharmesh Padamshibhai Patel, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. K. S. Dattatreya, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. V. Subramoniaiyr, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bajoria Foundation
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KAPOOR; VIR SAIN AGGARWAL; ITP
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Business expenditure; Unexplained cash credit; Documents seized; Onus to prove; TDS; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Source of fund; Bogus loan; Tangible material; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132; 68; 133(6); 246

Judgement Text

"ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4106/Del/2025 [Assessment Year 2021-22] DCIT Central Circle -1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, Noida-201301. vs M/s. Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., D-35, Anand Vihar and Vihar, Anand Vihar, S.O-East Delhi, Delhi-110092 PAN-AACCB7981J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Assessee by Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITP Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 09.04.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] emanating from assessment order dated 31.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 04.01.2022 at the premises of the ACE and Rudra Group. The search warrant also contained the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 2 name of assessee company. The assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.03.2022, declaring total income of loss of INR 15,43,11,175/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaires were issued from time to time. In response to these notices, the assessee furnished various details/documents/information including bank statements. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of loans received from different sources. It is observed by the AO that during the year, assessee has received a loan of INR 10.60 crores from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and paid interest of INR 31,00,340/- on the same. To establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan, assessee furnished confirmation, ITR, financial statements and bank statement of the lender. The AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act made the addition of Rs. 9,85,00,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of loan taken from M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. of the INR 9,60,00,000/- and further added INR 25,00,000/- from M/s. Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd and disallowance of INR 28,07,855/- was made on account of interest expenses claimed on the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 09.04.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,60,00,000/- made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 3 Act, 1961 on account of bogus unsecured loan allegedly taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.9,60,00,000/-, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions appearing in its books of accounts during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,60,00,000/- made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of bogus unsecured loan allegedly taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the said entity i.e. M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was classified as a confirmed shell company by the Ministry of Finance (Press Release dated 08.06.2018) and categorized as a High-Risk Financial Institution by FIU-IND for non-compliance with PMLA & associated rules and also the Inspector's report established the non-existence OR genuine business activity of the said entity. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of bogus unsecured loan allegedly taken from M/s Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions appearing in its books of accounts during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in deleting the said addition by not considering the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings as well as statements of Shri Ashish Begwani and Shri Vishal Kumar, who have categorically admitted the modus-operandi of cash generation and arranging the accommodation entries by the group entities. 5. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.28,07,855/- made on account of interest paid on unsecured loan to M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., ignoring the fact that the impugned transaction was not genuine, since the assessee failed to discharge its onus with regard to creditworthiness and genuineness of the loans appearing in its books of accounts from shell entity. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 4 6. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida has erred in law by admitting the additional evidences filed under Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, F without referring the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to produce the same during the assessment proceeding. 7. That the order of CIT(A) being erroneous in law and facts be set aside and order of the A.O. be restored. 8. That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other and appellant craves leave to add, alter OR amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may arise.” 5. Ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7 raised by the Revenue are related to the addition of INR 9,60,00,000/- made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act with respect to the unsecured loan received from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. which was treated as unexplained cash credit. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that identical issue has come up before us in the case of M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2020-21 and Others in ITA No. 3559/Del/2025 & Others wherein we have already held the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. as genuine and delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No.3559/Del/2025 AY 2020-21 vide order dated 26.11.2025 deleting the additions made are reproduced as under:- 19. “Heard the parties and perused the material available on records. In the present case the sole issue before us is the addition made of Rs. 17,74,00,000/- made by AO by holding the loans taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act which stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). Before going further, the facts leading to the issue are summarized as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 5 “A search action us/ 132 was carried out on ACE group of cases on 28.07.2021 and further on 04.01.2022. During the year assessee received loan of Rs. 26,74,00,000/- from a company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. which is a NBFC. The AO examined the genuineness of loan and after considering the financials of the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., observed its financial position is not satisfactory to grant such a huge loan to the assessee.” 20. The AO has referred the statements of Sh. Nishant Chajjar, Director assessee company who was also the director of lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. who in reply to Q. NO. 14 stated that the cash/Hawala Transaction were handled by the other director of assessee company Sh. Prakash Kumar Jha. AO further observed that Shri Nishant is also directors of many companies managed and controlled by one Shri Ashish Begwani who alleged the key person and engaged in providing accommodation loans to assessee. The also referred the statements of Shri Ashish Begwani, recorded in the year 2017 wherein he explained the modus opernadi for providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. 21. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had submitted copy of ITR, bank statement, Audited Balance Sheet of M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd to establish the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness. Assessee further established that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient funds available in its bank account as and when the funds were transferred to the assessee. 22. The AO admitted that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is registered NBFC however, alleged that it is also engaged in providing accommodation entries of loan to various business houses. Assessee claimed that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd has received CCDs amounting to Rs. 300 crores from M/s Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. during various financial years which is one of the group company of Reliance group. The AO observed that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is a shell company as per the Press Release dated 08.06.2018 by Ministry of Finance. The AO has accepted part loans as genuine and made the addition of 17,74,00,000/- by doubting the source of this amount in the hands of the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. 23. It is the contention of the assessee that no incriminating document whatsoever was found / seized during the course of search from the possession of the assessee or any of the directors or its employees. As the assessee no document is referred / relied upon by the AO for making the additions. He solely placed reliance on the statements of the director of assessee company and one of the employees of Ace group and also placed heavy reliance on the statements of one Shri Ashish Begwani, recorded during the search in his case in the year 2016-17 wherein he had admitted engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. However, such statements were recorded three-four years back where transactions Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 6 under dispute before us were carried out in the year 2019-20 thus these statements have no direct relevance with the loans taken by the assessee and therefore, cannot be made sole basis for alleging the loan taken by the assessee company in the year under appeal from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained/ bogus accommodation entries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III, Pune vs Singhad Education Society in Civil Appeal No.11080/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.25257/2015 has held as under:- “The seized incriminating material have to pertain to the AY in question and have co-relation, document-wise, with the AY. This requirement u/s 153C is essential and becomes a jurisdictional fact. It is an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in S.153A.” 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 149 taxman.com 399 (SC) has also held that “no addition could be made dehorse the incriminating material”. 25. Further no addition could be made solely on the basis of statements of third party without bringing on record any corroborative evidence. In this regard we are in agreement with the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) at pages 91 to 95 of the order which is reproduced as under: Standalone statements without corroborative evidence: “The above, discussion reveals that the statements of Sh. Vishal Kumar and Sh. Nishant Chaijar reproduced by the AO in the assessment order are without corroborative evidence. The statements of the Directors of the Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the ACE Group le. Sh. Prakash Kumar Jha and Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi which were contrary to the statements of Nishant Chajjar and Vishal Kumar have not been reproduced in the assessment order, It is important for the Assessing Authority to analyze all the evidences available before him. Moreover, the statement of Nishant Chajjar makes no reference of advancing of bogus loan to the appellant meaning thereby that, even if, Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in providing & receiving bogus loans apart from the regular business of NBFC (being a company of mixed conduct as established by the AO), still documentary evidence needed to be there to prove that funds advanced to the appellant were ingenuine. Such documentary evidence is conspicuously absent in the assessment order despite the fact that both the assessee group and M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. were searched. It is pertinent to mention here that the standalone statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer cannot itself be considered as sufficient evidenceto reach the conclusion as drawn by the AO in the assessment order, moreso, for the reason that the said statements Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 7 were equally rebutted by the other director of the appellant company. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that cash was exchanged against the loans raised whereas, the director of the company had refuted the said allegation. On the above issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal reported at [2024] 161 taxmann.com 813 (SC) has held as under: \"Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Illustrations) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer solely based on statements of Directors recorded during a search operation conducted under section 132 on assessee, made addition under section 68 without probing deeper into income-tax returns of creditor companies and without scrutinizing documents furnished by assessee to prove genuineness of such credits, impugned addition was to be set aside - Whether SLP filed by revenue against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 1] [In favour of assessee]\" Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-ll, Hyderabad vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal reported at [2015] 53 taxmann.com 306 (Andhra Pradesh) has held as under: Where in absence of any incriminating material etc., found from premises of assessee during course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirappalli reported at [2016] 74 taxmann. com 35 Madras) has held as under: Where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere statement given by his son under section 132(4) which was not corroborated by any material evidence, neither such statement would be a conclusive evidence, nor any addition could be made. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) vs. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 8 Naresh Nemchand Shah reported at 2023] 156 taxmann.com 346 (Gujarat) has held as under: \"Where pursuant to a survey, unsecured loans taken by assessee from GCSL were deemed non-genuine by Assessing Officer on basis of statement of director of GCSL, since apart from said statement, there was no other evidence against assessee and moreover, assessee had filed evidence in form of confirmation from creditor, audited accounts of creditor and copies of banks accounts to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of creditor which was within parameters of section 68, impugned addition made in that respect to be deleted\" Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sreeleathers reported at [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435 (Calcutta) it has been held as under: It was noted that show-cause notice issued on assessee was only in respect of one lender company, namely, FGD - Assessee provided various documents in form of PAN card, income-tax acknowledgement, copy of bank statement, certification of incorporation, master data from register of companies, certificate of incorporation and annual account to prove FD's identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction - However, Assessing Officer by relying on statement of one AKA, who was alleged operator of such bogus companies, brushed aside these documents on mere ground that they did not absolve assessee from his responsibility of proving nature of transaction -It was noted that statement of AKA was not recorded in presence of assessee nor an opportunity of cross-examination was provided to it - Whether where there was no evidence brought on record by Assessing Officer to connect statement of AKA with loan transaction of assessee, said statement was of little avail and could not be basis of allegations - Held, yes - Whether, further, since assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documentary evidences and burden had now shifted to Assessing Officer, who failed to bring on record any reason in writing as to why these documents did not establish identity of lender or proved genuineness of transaction, impugned assessment order passed by casually brushing aside these evidences was utterly perverse and liable to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [Matter remanded] Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. reported at [2023] 148 taxmann. com 313 (Calcutta) has held as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 9 Where Assessing Officer solely based on statement of assessee's director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee-company as undisclosed income and made additions under section 68, since said statement was retracted during search operation and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence or investigation brought on record by AO, impugned additions were to be deleted. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shardaben K. Modi reported at [2013] 35 taxmann.com 264 (Gujarat) has held as under: In absence of any independent material, statement of assessee's son recorder during survey would not form a valid basis for reopening assessment of assessee Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. reported at (2024) 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) has held as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Loans) - Assessment years 2007-08 and 2012-13 - Assessee-company took unsecured loans from two companies - On basis of statement of one PKJ recorded during search and seizure operation that he had provided accommodation entries to assessee, Assessing Officer treated said loans as fake - Whether since Assessee had submitted all evidence to substantiate loans in question, including confirmation from creditors and loans were taken and repaid through banking channels, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating said unsecured loan as fake and making addition of interest paid on said loan to assessee's income - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favor of assessee) As has already been discussed above, the AO has relied upon statement of Nishant Chajjar and Vishal Kumar in the assessment order whereas, the statements of Prakash Kumar Jha and complete statement of Pratap Singh Rathi have not been discussed in the assessment order. It is also seen that the Investigation on the basis of source to source has been applied only to the funds received from Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. and HFCL but no such source-to-source investigation has been conducted with respect to the funds other than those received from Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. On the issue of cherry picking of statements/evidences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. reported at 2022 (8) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT has held as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 10 \"SEBI's attempt to cherry-pick the documents it proposes to disclose - There is a dispute about the fact that certain excerpts of the opinion of Justice (Retd.) B. N Srikrishna, were disclosed to the appellant herein. It is the allegation of the appellant that while the parts which were disclosed, vaguely point to the culpability of the appellant, SEBI is refusing to divulge the information which exonerate it. Such cherry-picking by SEBI only derogates the commitment to a fair trial. In the case at hand, SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry-picking. Appeal allowed.\" Further, in the judgment of Ld. ITAT Delhi Bench E in the case of M/s Lumax Industries Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi in ITA No. 947/Del/2021 vide its order dated 0d4.04.2024, it has been held as under: \"24. In the case in hand, the Ld. AO grossly erred in not taking cognizance of all the material found during the course of the search and not making any observation/comments on the other seized material. The Ld. AO cannot just cherry pick a particular piece of information to put reliance while concluding the proceedings of against the Assessee. The Ld. A.O. cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by accepting and making a particular piece of evidence found during the course of search as his sole basis of addition and ignore the other documents/material, more particularly relating to the impugned transaction, found during the course of same sealed proceedings. Further, the Ld. ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported at ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 on 8 July, 2024 has held as under: In our opinion, even the statement recorded to be considered as true, it has to be considered in its entirety and there shall not be any cherry picking and the AO cannot consider only the portion which is favorable to revenue. Further, the Ld. ITAT Bench of Delhi in the case of HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. C/O HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS ASST. CIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1) (1), DELHI reported at 2024(1) TMI 309 - ITAT DELHI has held as under: From the perusal of the aforesaid statements of various employees which were recorded during the course of survey by the TDS officers, which were heavily relied upon by the Id. AO by cherry picking some Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 11 of the questions and answers alone given by them, we find that prima facie all the statements of employees actually support the contentions of the assessee herein. Further, the Ld. ITAT Bench of Bangalore in the case of M/S. HASSAN HAJEE & CO. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MANGALORE (VICE VERSA) reported at 2022(9) TMI 1480 - ITAT BANGALORE has held as under: The AO has taken notice of this statement. However, he intentionally ignored it as it was in favour of the assessee. The A.O. could not do cherry picking, if the Ld. AO considered the statement of Shri B. Kunhi where he has stated that payment of speed money was at Rs. 35 per M.T., there could be no addition on this count. In view of the above discussion and stated judicial pronouncements, it is apparent that the statements reproduced by the AO without any corroborative evidence cannot be a sole basis for making addition in the case of the assessee. This is all the more true because the AO has himself proceeded to enquire into the source of source of the loans and gave relief to the extent of approximately Rs. 140 crores(Rs. 9 crore in the present case) in the whole ACE Group from the total loans received from M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. by ascribing the same to be from genuine sources. Still, it shall be important to examine the other relevant issues in the case in consequence to which enquiry was initiated with M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd.” 26. As per section 68 of the Act, there must be a credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee and such credit has to be of a sum received during the previous year; and the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is not satisfactory, it is only then the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The expression \"the assessee offer no explanation\" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. It is true that the opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion. 27. In the instant case as observed above, assessee has filed following documentary evidences in support of the loan from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. :- (i) Confirmed Copy of account statement; (ii) Bank statement of the lender company; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 12 (iii) Audited financial statement of the lender company; (iv) Copy of ITR acknowledgement of the lender company 28. It is further seen that by filing the bank statement, assessee has not only proved the source in the hands of the lender company but further prove the source of source of the loan given to it by explaining each credit entry in the table submitted before then ld. CIT(A) as appearing at pages 100-102 of the order which is reproduced as under for sake of convenience:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 14 29. It is also relevant to state that an amendment is made vide Finance Act, 2022 wherein second proviso to section 68 is added so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in the form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or loan provider. However, this additional onus to prove satisfactorily the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well-regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI. This amendment has taken effect from 1stApril, 2023 and accordingly applies in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The year before us is AY 2020-21 thus this amendment is not applicable, yet the assessee has been able to establish the same as per the table reproduced herein above. 30. As observed above, the requirement of explaining ‘Source’ of ‘Source’ in respect of loans is applicable from A.Y. 2023-24 and subsequent years. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of coordinate bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s Mall Hotels Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 2688/DEL/2014 dated 31.05.2022. 31. Further the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v Smt. Prem Anand in ITA No. 3514/Del/2014 vide order dated 13.04.2017 held that amendment made in section 68 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2013 empowers the A.O. to examine source of source in case of share application money / share capital / share premium from 01.04.2013 and this amendment does Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 15 not give power to the A.O. to examine source of source of non-share capital cases. 32. As is evident from the chart as reproduced above, assessee has been able to establish the source of source in the hands of the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the AO has wrongly under stood the said receipts as loans taken by the lender company whereas the same were repayment of the loans given by the lender company to all those companies thus the allegations made about the financial statements of the companies whose sums were credited in the bank account of the assessee prior to the funds transferred tot eh assessee is totally uncalled for and thus ignored and excluded and cannot be considered for examining the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender company. 33. It is also relevant to state that the lander company has received funds in the shape of CCD from M/s Teesta Retails Pvt.Ltd who is having strong net worth and during the year assessee has received a sum of Rs. 60.00 crores out of total 300.00 crores received in FY 2019-20 to 2021-22. It is also observed by ld. CIT(A) that the RBI license issued was also submitted and in the assessment proceedings of one of the group company M/s Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., who is also before us in the captioned appeals, loan received from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. out of the funds received from Teesta Retails were also accepted by the department, thus the funds to such extent cannot be held as unexplained. 34. Another issue raised by the revenue is that the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was declared as Shell company by the press release issued by the Ministry of Finance dt.08.06.2018 and further no opportunity was given to the Ao to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee which are in the nature of additional evidences u/R 46A of the Act. In this context, it is seen that in order to verify this fact, ld. CIT(A) has made direct enquires from SFIO u/s 250(4) of the Act, who is the nodal agencies in this regard. The SFIO vide reply dt. 23.01,2025, as reproduced herein above, in clear terms has stated that no investigation is initiated/pending/disposal against the company i.e. M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. the conclusion drawn by ld. CIT(A) on the basis of aforesaid report of SFIO are fully convincing and we concur these findings given by ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced as under: “From the above press release, following conclusions can be drawn: a. The red flagged companies which had not filed returns for last 2 years were deregistered from the ROC. b. Directors of those companies which had not filed annual returns were disqualified. c. The struck-off companies were restricted from using their bank accounts. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 16 d. Genuine corporates were given benefit of condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular in its compliances with ROC and RB etc. The exact correspondences with M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SEIO have already been reproduced above in the body of the order. M/s. Hallow Securities Pt. Ltd. in response to enquiry from this office provided the following information: a. Details of the annual returns filed with the ROC from AY 2018-19 till AY 2024-25. b. Details of the annual returns filed with the RBl from AY 2018-19 till AY 2024-25. c. No show cause has been received by the above company from the ROC since Financial Year 2017-18 (i.e. even after a period of seven years of the press release quoted by the AO). Enquiry letter was also issued to SFIO to know, if any, proceedings were pending with the Nodal Authority against M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. The response of SFIO authorities has already been reproduced in the body of the order above. The Nodal Authority (SFIO) has clearly reported that no proceedings are pending against M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. with their office” 35. Further from the perusal of observations at page 79 onwards of the order of ld. CIT(A) we find that CIT(A) has provided numerous opportunities to the AO for rebuttal/objections however, the AO has not availed any of the opportunity therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has made the enquiries in terms of the power conferred upon it in section 250(4) of the Act. The relevant observations of ld. CIT(A) are as under: Reply of AO “During the course of appellate proceedings, various reminders were issued to the Ayide this office emails dated 15.02.2025, 08.02.2025, 01.02.2025, 25.01.2025, 24.01.2025, 18.01.2025, 15.01.2025, 14.01.2025 & 08.01.2025 on various issues including enquiries conducted with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., SFIO Report, Additional Grounds of Appeal etc. But no objections have been received from the AO till the date of finalization of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 17 It is pertinent to point out that it was only during the course of enquiry done by this office that the assessee/third parties furnished the relevant evidences. The said evidences were called for under the powers of enquiry with the office of Commissioner Appeal). Hence, the assessee/third parties have not produced any additional evidence but have only furnished evidences as called tor during enquiry made by this office. In case, the AO is not able to collect complete material and take the issue to logical end, the evidence collected by the appellate authority from the assessee/third parties in continuation of the same trail initiated by the AO would be clarificatory evidence. The clarificatory evidence would only remove the doubts arising in the mind of the appellate authorities from the documents on record so that the issue under consideration is taken to a logical conclusion by making the argument more explicit so that the real income can be arrived at. On the said issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-l vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. reported at [2011) 16 taxmann.com27 (Delhi) has held as under: \"Whether a distinction should be recognized and maintained between a case where assessee invokes rule 46A to adduce additional evidence before Commissioner (Appeals) and a case where Commissioner (Appeals), without being prompted by assessee, while dealing with appeal, considers it fit to cause or make a further enquiry by virtue of powers vested in him under subsection (4) of section 250 and it is only when he exercises his statutory suo moto power under above sub-section, that requirements of rule 46A need not be followed - Held, yes\" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. CIT reported at 59 taxman 405 has observed as under: \"The appellate authority should have accepted the material produced by the assessee as clarificatory in nature and considered the same to test the fairness and propriety of the estimate of income made by the Income-tax Officer. Though it was belated production of very relevant material, no prejudice (in its legal sense) would have resulted to the Revenue by considering the material produced by the assessee... In the absence of any prejudice to the Revenue, and the basis of the tax under the Act being to levy tax, as far as possible, on the real income, the approach should be liberal in applying the procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but a continuation of the original proceeding and what the Income-tax Officer could have done, the appellate authority also could do.\" [Emphasis supplied] (p. 673) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 18 Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Mishingar Kaur vs. Central Government reported at (1976) 104 ITR 120 (ALL.) has held as under: \"The AAC could while disposing of an appeal, make such inquiry as he thought fit. He could permit a fresh or new ground to be raised in the appeal.No part of rule 46A whittles down or impairs the power to make further inquiry conferred upon the AAC by section 250. Similarly, sub-section (5) of the said section confers a power on the AAC to permit the appellant to raise a fresh point. This power has not been even touched by rule 46A.\" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported at [1998) 100 TAXMAN 404 (BOM.) has held as under: It is, thus, clear that the powers of the AAC are much wider than the powers of an ordinary court of appeal. The scope of his powers is coterminous with that of the ITO. He can do what the ITO can do. He can also direct the ITO to do what he failed to do. The power conferred on the AAC under the said subsection being quasi-judicial power, it is incumbent on him to exercise the same if the facts and circumstances justify. If the AAC fails to exercise his discretion judicially and arbitrarily refuses to make enquiry in a case where the facts and circumstances so demand, his action would be open for correction by a higher authority. On a conjoint reading of section 250 and rule 46A, it is clear that the restrictions placed on the appellant to produce evidence do not affect the powers of the AAC under sub-section (4) of section 250. The purpose of rule 46A appears to be to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the ITO. ………….. The AAC should have considered this evidence in exercise of his powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 250 which he failed to do. Thus, it was a fit case where the AAC should have exercised the powers conferred upon him and taken on record the zerox copies of the cheque, the certificate from the bank and the copy of the account of the assessee with the said bank and considered the same for deciding the genuineness of the loan.\" Further, the Ld. ITAT Bench Calcutta in the case of INCOME- TAX OFFICER VS. BAJORIA FOUNDATION reported at [2001] 117 TAXMAN 126 (CAL.) (MAG.) has held as under: \"Whether a harmonious interpretation of section 250, even if read with rule 46A, means that if facts of case warrant further enquiries, it is within powers of Commissioner (Appeals) to do so - Held, yes - Whether if prima facie an information is necessary to examine claim Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 19 of assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) should consider necessary evidence in exercise of his powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 250 - Held, yes\" Further, the Ld. ITAT Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. J.A. Infracon (P.) Ltd reported at [2025] 171 taxmann.com 228 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) has held as under: Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report from Assessing Officer and issued notice under section 133(6) to aforesaid investor companies and in response to same, parties namely 'ATPL' and 'ALPL' confirmed transactions With assessee company with necessary documents and evidences - These Confirmations were not controverted by Assessing Officer by way of bringing anything adverse on record - Further in spite of availability of all documents transaction with share applicant companies who had made share application on record, nothing had been brought on record by Assessing Officer to doubt in assessee company - Whether, on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 7, 8 and 11] [in favour of assessee]\" Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coals Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that \"the appellate Commissioner has plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The Hon'ble Court further held that the scope of the power of CIT(A) is coterminous with the AO.\" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. K. S. Dattatreya [2011] 197 taxman 151 has held that \"as a revisional authority commissioner appeal can revise not only the ultimate computation arrived at but every process which lead to the ultimate computation or assessment\". Further, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of V. SubramoniaAiyr vS. CIT 1978] 113 ITR 685 held that \"the power conferred on Appellate Authority by Section 246 which is exercised in accordance with procedure with Section 250 indicate and amplitude and width which is no less wide than that of an ITO and the Appellate Authority could substitute the order of the ITO by one of his own.\" 36. In view of the above clear observations of ld. CIT(A) we find that despite of repeated opportunities to the AO, no response was given thus the ld. CIT(A) had proceeded to decide the issue after making necessary enquires at his end. Accordingly, we find no error in such findings of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly this plea of the revenue is not acceptable. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 20 37. Another important aspect which has been considered by ld. CIT(A) is that the loans were repaid by the assessee in subsequent years and assessee has also field the copies of the relevant ledger accounts before us which are placed in the paper book. The assessee also filed a chart in this regard which is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 21 38. While accepting the plea of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has made following observations at page 109 of the order : Repayment of Loan “The AR further submitted that the loans under contention already stand repaid in the future years. The relevant copies of account of the repayment of loans are placed at pages 46 to 49 of the paper book, It has been held in a number of judgments that once an Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 22 unsecured loan has been returned back, the same cannot be treated as income u/s 68. On the above issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of income-tax vs. Gujarat Television (P.) Ltd. reported at [2024] 159 taxmann.com 739 (SC) has held as under: \"SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where unsecured loans given to assessee were squared up on same date and nothing remained outstanding at end of day, much less at end of financial year, impugned reassessment proceedings to tax same under section 68 deserved to be quashed” On the above issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. reported at [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) has held as under: \"Where assessee had taken unsecured loan from two companies and had submitted all evidences to substantiate loan including confirmation from creditors and loan was taken and repaid through banking channels, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating said unsecured loan as fake and unexplained cash credit\" Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central vs. Dharmesh Padamshibhai Patel soner reported at [2023] 156 taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) has held as under: However, Tribunal remanded matter back to Assessing Officer to verify identity of parties -It was noted that Tribunal had observed that assessee had furnished bank accounts of all lenders wherein loans claimed were duly reflected - Creditors were assessed to tax and their confirmations were filed - Further, loans were returned through banking channels before close of subsequent Financial year - Whether, on facts, an opportunity was rightly allowed by Tribunal to assessee to prove identity of lenders when their creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions as was held by Commissioner (Appeals), were already proved - Held, yes [Paras 15 and 16] In favour of assessee] Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Surat vs Neotech Education Foundation reported at [2023] 148 taxmann.com 372 (Gujarat) has held as under: It was noted that Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing necessary details Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 23 such as a copy of PAN, bank details and ITRetc. in support of identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transaction - He further noted that payment of loan to assessee as well as repayment of loan and interest by assessee were made by account payed cheques - Further, both lower authorities had concurrently held that initial burden of proof even if not discharged by assessee at level of Assessing Officer but every transaction was explained by production of documents by assessee before Commissioner (Appeals) where two remand reports were called for - Whether, on facts, impugned addition on account of loan amount made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 9 to 11] [In favour of assessee] Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd reported at [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat) has held as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 9 and 11] [In favour of assessee] Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd reported at [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat) has held as under: Where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68 could be made on account of such loan Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd. reported at [2023] 156 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) has held as under: Where assessee showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that assessee failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68, since amount of loan received by assessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 24 39. We find that the sole allegation of the AO was that the assessee has taken the bogus accommodation entries in the shape of unsecured loans however, as discussed above, the revenue has failed to controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A) who not only appreciate the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee but also make verification at his own end in terms of the powers u/s 250(4) of the Act when the AO has filed to response on the request of ld. CIT(A) of making verification of the submissions made by the assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon it of establishing the genuineness of the loans and creditworthiness of the lender company and further established the source of source though was not required under the law as existed at the relevant time. The conclusion drawn by ld. CIT(A) is as under: Conclusion “Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The money advanced by Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee company is out of the return back of advances given to other concerns by Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. during the earlier years or the year under consideration (or ACE Group meaning thereby that the creditworthiness of entities like Manak routed through the genuine entities like Teesta Retails Pyt. Ltd. and HFCL in Estate & Finance Pvt Ltd, Sundram Consultants Pt Ltd, AKJ Engineers Pvt Ltd, Kanta Credits and Holdings Pvt Ltd. becomes irrelevant. Hence, the application of Section 68 using the source of source theory to the case of the appellant becomes uncalled for in above circumstances. 2. The fund flow statement of M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. from AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 reveals that there were sufficient funds available with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. out of additions made by AO which were advanced to findings and discussion, it is observed that the bank credits in the hands of various concerns including the appellant. Without prejudice to the above M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. have already been added by the AO in the assessment orders of M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 to Ar 2022-23, the adding the same money emanating from the said accounts in the hands of the assessee company would amount to double taxation of the same. 3. The AO in the assessment proceedings of Hallow Securities Pt. Ltd. has excluded the funds advanced to ACE Group from the total credits added in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. The exclusion of the funds advanced to the ACE Group from the total credits added by the AO in the hands of Hallow Securities Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 25 Pvt. Ltd. is immaterial as when the total addition made in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is compared with the increase in the application of funds in its balance sheets over the years, a net surplus persists, clearly demonstrating that same funds have been subjected to multiple and duplicate additions. 4. It is further evident that the exclusion of funds advanced to ACE Group from the current year's credits in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is also inconsequential for the reason that the corresponding credits in earlier years have already been added to the income in the case of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. Hence, once the original advances and credits forming the substratum of these transactions have been added to the income of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., any subsequent reduction from the credits in accounts of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. of the advances given to the ACE Group does not materially impact the overall transactions which need to be brought to tax. 5. The loans received from M/s. Hallow Securities Pt. Ltd. have been returned back in future years. 6. The statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar is without corroborative documentary evidence meaning that the said statement is standalone. 7. The statement of the Directors i.e. Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi (who has denied the facts as narrated by Sh. Vishal Kumar) rebuts the statement of sh. Vishal Kumar. 8. The AO has applied the source of source theory in ACE Group while giving relief with respect to the funds received from Hallow Securities Put. Ltd. via Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. Applying the same theory as applied by the AO to the other funds received by the appellant reveals that the said money majorly emanated out of the coffers of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. during earlier years which were advanced to various entities and returned back. In view of the discussion on various issues carried out above, the addition made by the AO is not found to be sustainable and accordingly these grounds of appeal are allowed. 40. In view of the above discussion and further looking to the fact that when all the relevant details and documentary evidences produced by the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, the said evidences cannot be rejected based on the statements of third party without any contrary documentary evidence. It is seen that transactions have been done through banking channels and on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 26 the date of making of loans, there was sufficient balance available in the bank account of the lender company, which proves the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. It is also relevant that out total amount of loans of 27.27 crores received, the AO has despite of doubting the creditworthiness, had made the addition of INR. 17.74 crores only meaning thereby the creditworthiness for the remaining amount is not doubted though the facts and the circumstances while granting these loans remained the same. This creates serious doubts about the mode and manner of the additions made by the AO. Once it is accepted that the lender has creditworthiness for part of the amount, the remaining amount cannot be held as unexplained. There is no case of any cash deposited in the account of any of the lender company at the time of issuing cheques/RTGS in favour of the Assessee. Therefore, Appellant has duly discharged the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. 41. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. The assessee, in the instant case, has sufficiently demonstrated the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. On a broader reckoning, the apprehension raised by the Revenue authorities militates against the tangible material and is thus extraneous. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made u/s 68 towards the unsecured loans of Rs. 17.74 crores by holding the same as accommodation entries. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 7. From the perusal of the assessment order and first appellate order, it is seen that on the issue of loan from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., all the observations and allegations made by AO are same as were made in the case of M/s Allure Developers in AY 2020-21. 8. Before us, this fact is also admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing where arguments were made in the case of M/s Allure Developers in AY 2020-21 & Others in ITA No. 3559/Del/2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 27 & Others by taking the same as lead case on the issue of loan from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. 9. Admittedly when there is no change in the facts and circumstances regarding the issue of loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. where in the case of M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.3559/Del/2025 & Others for AY 2020-21 & Others , we held the same as genuine, therefore, by following the said observations made by us which are Mutatis Mutandis applied to the facts of the present case, the addition made of Rs. 9,60,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act towards the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is hereby deleted. Accordingly Ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the Revenue is with respect to deletion of loan of INR 25,00,000/- taken from M/s. Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. which was made by the AO by holding the same as bogus unsecured loan. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. AO has made the addition by doubting the creditworthiness of the lender company and further observed that source of source is not established. AO observed that company has low income as compared to the loan given to the assessee. Accordingly, the AO has made the addition by holding the same as bogus accommodation entries. The claim of the assessee is that during the course of assessment proceedings, it had submitted copy of ITR, bank statement and confirmation of lender. Regarding the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 28 source of source, it was the submission of the Ld.AR that the amendment in the Act with respect to examination of source of source was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and applicable from AY 2023- 24. 12. Ld. CIT(A) in page 169 of the appellate order, observed that M/s Dhankalash Distributor P. Ltd. had shown income under MAT of INR 52,22,232/- and further observed that this company has Share Capital and Surpluses of INR 66,13,52,657/-. Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the lender company had received INR 400 crores as CCD from Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. and made investment of INR 95 crores in Vodafone Idea Ltd. After considering these facts, Ld. CIT(A) accepted the loan of INR 25 Lakhs received from the company as genuine. It is further observed by us that Ld. CIT(A) has made independent inquiries and after considering all the facts, had reached to the conclusion that the loan taken from Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. passed the conditions laid down in section 68 of the Act to hold the loan as genuine. Before us, the revenue has filed to controvert such findings of ld. CIT(A) which are made after thorough examination of the facts and details filed by the assessee and also considering the results of independent inquiries made at his end and no material whatsoever was brought on record by the revenue to establish such observations as incorrect. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and after considering the facts that Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. have sufficient creditworthiness to advance a loan of INR 25 Lakhs to the assessee, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by AO. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 29 Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. Ground of appeal No.5 raised by the Revenue is towards the deletion of disallowance of INR of Rs. 28,07,855/- made out of interest paid on unsecured loans to M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., by observing that since loan taken from that company is not genuine, the interest paid on such loan cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Once we reached the conclusion that the loan received from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is genuine, therefore, the interest paid on such loan cannot be doubted and thus, the same is hereby allowed as business expenditure. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.5 taken by the revenue in present appeal is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-27.11.2025 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4106/Del/2025 Page | 30 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "