GEETA BABU SAWANT,MUMBAI V. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 138/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeals by the Revenue against Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., concerning additions made under section 68 and section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issue was the genuineness of loan transactions and the subsequent interest payments, which the Revenue contended were unexplained cash credits and unexplained expenditures, respectively. The CIT(A) had earlier deleted these additions, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including the financial documents and the responses from the lender companies, and found that the assessee had adequately proven the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not substantiated its claims with adequate evidence, relying instead on information from the Investigation Wing without further verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829339 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Kalekhan Mohd Hanif v. CIT, CIT v Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd., CIT v Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd., CIT v. P. Mohankala, ITO v. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd., ACIT Vs. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK; VIRUTALLY
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNAMIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Unexplained investment; Onus to prove; TDS; Accommodation entries; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 68; 131; 69; 133(6); 69C

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 138/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 ACIT, CC-7(3) Room No. 655, Floor 6th Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN – AAOCS2723H Vs Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Office No. II, 289 Emca House, SBS Road, Mumbai – 400 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue by Ms. Kavitha kaushik, Sr. DR (Virutally appeared) Date of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.01.2026 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013- 14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. \"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the assessment proceedings as invalid and bad in law without considering the Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which clearly states that any return of income, assessment, notice, summons, or other proceedings made or issued under the law will not be considered invalid solely due to mistakes, defects, or omissions, as long as the substance and purpose of the action align with the intent of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. law. In other words, minor errors do not invalidate the action if the overall purpose is met.\" 2. \"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the proviso to section 147 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 19.12.2015 and the case of assessee can be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if income has escaped assessment.\" 3. \"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of 2,55,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of loan transactions recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee received from the parties enlisted in the information provided by the Investigation Wing and these entities are shell companies which are operated, managed and controlled by Praveen Agarwal group for providing accommodation entries only.\" 4. \"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of 2,55,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without considering the statement of Praveen Agarwal recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act by the DDITS(INV.) Kolkata whererin he admitted that these shell entities used to provide accommodation entries to the beneficiaries by rotating the funds through intermediary companies and earned commission for the same\" 5. \"The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all of the above said grounds of appeal. The appellant reserves its right to file further submission in the appeal.\" 2. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee being an NBFC registered with RBI filed its return of income, however based on the information received with Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. regard to one entry operator Mr. Praveen Agrarwal, the case of the assessee was reopened and after seeking details of loan taken from three parties i.e M/s Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt Ltd., M/s Sampark Advisory Services Pvt Ltd., and M/s Subhdhrishti Complex Pvt Ltd., additions were made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit moreover the said additions were deleted in appeal by Ld. CIT(A). The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced herein below: \"Para 7.3. Having decided the technical/legal grounds, I proceed to decide the issue on merits. Appellant has raised the ground no 5, in which he has challenged the addition of Rs 2,55,00,000/- on merits. It has made the submission in support of its argument. In the assessment order, AO has narrated the circumstances that led to the addition of Rs 2,55,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Notices u/s. 133(6) were issued to the three lender companies through e-mail as well through speed post. The said notices issued u/s. 133(6) sent through speed post were returned/unserved by the postal authorities. However, the reply of the same was received by post and mail. In order to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the assessee was asked to produce the lender parties for verification. However, the said parties were not produced by the appellant. Instead that appellant had, vide its letter dt. 24.12.2019, furnished the confirmation and copies of Return of Income and its enclosures. AO has not accepted theexplanation provided by the appellant and has held that the unsecured loans of Rs 2,55,00,000/- from the three parties have not been explained by the appellant. Said amount has been added as deemed income u/s 68 of the Act. On the other hand, the appellant has argued that it had provided all the necessary details required to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction and has therefore, discharged the onus cast u/s 68 of the Act. It is argued that Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the appellant was not provided opportunity to cross examine the witness, whose statement was recorded by the investigation wing. Para 7.3.1. I have considered the submission of the appellant and the discussion made in the assessment order. Appellant has furnished confirmation from all the three parties, copy of return of income, audited financial statements bank statement in which the transactions are reflected. The important financial parameters in support of the creditworthiness of the lender companies are tabulated below- Para 7.3.2. Section 68 is deeming fiction dealing with the burden of proof. Section 68 provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an asseseee and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in opinion of the assessing officer satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged as income for the previous year. Once the appellant provides the required explanation, the onus shifts on the assessing officer to prove that the same is not satisfactory. In this case, I find that the appellant has submitted its explanation and provided the documentary evidence to prove the identity and net worth of the lenders and the genuineness of the transaction. The onus then shifts to the assessing officer to prove that the said explanation is not satisfactory. It is seen that the assessing officer has not recorded any observation on the documents submitted by the appellant. AO has reiterated and relied on the findings of the investigation wing based on which the case was reopened. Regarding the findings of the investigation wing, it is seen that the name of the appellant does not figure in the information provided by the investigation wing. No attempt is seen to be made to establish fund trail from the appellant to the entry providers. The only new findings given in the assessment order is that the notices u/s 133(6) were returned by the post unserved and that the appellant had not produced the said parties before him. The finding that the notices were returned unserved or the parties were not produced for verification cannot be the only ground for treating the loans as unexplained. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Para 7.3.3. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in light of various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, I hold that the appellant has discharged its onus u/s. 68 of the Act. I do not agree with the findings of the AO that the said unsecured loan is unexplained. Fact that the entire loan has been repaid back in later years, goes in favour of the appellant Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,55,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Para 7.3.4. Ground no 4 & 5 are hereby allowed. Para 7.4. Ground no 6 is on initiation of penalty. Same is dismissed as being premature. Ground no 7, being technical ground is not adjudicated. Para 8. Appeal is allowed.\" 3. After having heard the counsels for the parties at length, we found that the additions were made by AO u/s 68 of the Act only on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv) Kolkata whereas on the contrary during the course of assessment proceedings, all the credible evidences were furnished before the AO establishing the case of the respondent / assessee on merits. As far as the identity of the lenders is concerned, in this regard confirmation letters with complete names, addresses, and PANs, master data from the Ministry of Corporation Affairs (MCA) website were produced, which this proved that the lenders were active, legally incorporated entities. As per as the credit worthiness of the lenders is concerned, in this regard Audited Balance Sheets and Profit and loss Accounts for the relevant period, income tax return (ITR) acknowledgements, the net worth of the lenders was substantial, demonstrating ample financial capacity were Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. produced. As far as genuineness of the Transactions is concern, in this regard Bank statements of both the assessee and the lenders, these statements showed the loan transactions occurred through normal banking channels, loan confirmations specifying the terms, amounts, and transactions were produced. 4. The following table contains the details of the documents submitted for the three lender companies in question: Lender Company Name PAN Documents submitted Parameshwar Merchandise Pvt Ltd AAECP9821B Loan Confirmation, ITR Acknowledgement, Audited Financial, Bank Statement, Form 16A (TDS) MCA Master Data Sampark Advisory Services Pvt Ltd AAJCS1019D Subhdristi Complex Pvt Ltd AAMCS5113K However, till the conclusion of the assessment proceedings the AO had not been able to discredit any of the above evidences brought on record. Thus in this way the assessee had satisfactorily discharged the onus cast upon him. But on the contrary, the AO could not point of any defect in the said documents, but had doubted the transactions only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that too, on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and without providing any opportunity of cross examination to the assessee with regard to the basis of such doubt and even no contrary Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. evidence was in possession of the AO to disprove the loan transactions. 5. It is a settled law that when once assessee adduced evidences to establish prima-facie the identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of transactions by discharging its burden to prove the same then the onus shifts on the department to disprove the same, which has not been done in this case. On this preposition, we find support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalekhan Mohd Hanif v. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that the onus on the assessee has to be understood with reference to the facts of each case and proper inference drawn from the facts. The law of section 68 of the Act is not different. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue. 6. Further Reliance has also been placed on the following case laws, CIT v Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (330 ITR 298)(Delhi HC), CIT v Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. (333 ITR 119) (Delhi HC) CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), ITO v. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd. (20 taxmann.com 153) (ITAT Mumbai) Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Apart from the above, we are also of the view that once assessee had discharged its burden than other reasons of non appearance of lender before AO would not negate the case of the assessee. On this preposition reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Archid Industries Pvt Ltd in ITA No1433/Mum/2014 dated 5th July 2017 wherein it was held that the Tribunal has considered that the Assessee has produced on record the documents to establish the genuineness of the party such as PAN of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money. The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee. In the case of ITO vs Neelkanth finbuild LTD (2009) ITA No 2821/ DEL honorable tribunal has held that once identity of creditor is proved than it is not the business of assessee to find out the source of the money of credit to account. Income tax appellate tribunal, bench \"с\", Kolkata ITA No.1064/Kol/2011 :- for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in case of Nived Anoopkumar Dhandhania, v/s I.T.O. was held that C.I.T.(Appeals) erred and acted injudiciously in Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. doubting the genuineness of and confirming the addition of unsecured loans from five parties to the appellant's total income though the transactions are entered through banking channels and the assessee has discharged its onus of identification of the creditors with PAN Nos., copies of balance sheet and bank statements. CBDT Circular No. F. No.286/2/2003/IT(inv) dated 11.03.2003 has directed its offices to focus on collection of evidence on undisclosed income and not on obtaining confession of undisclosed income and to make addition. (3) We The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Lovely Exports 6 DTR 308 it has held if there is bogus share holders and their name are appearing in books than department is free to reopen individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/c Creative World Telefilms Ltd.333 ITR 100 has held as under: \"If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders who's name are given to the Assessing Officer then the department can always proceed against them and if necessary reopen their individual assessments. Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no dispute that the assessee had given the details of names and addresses of Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the shareholders, their PAN/GIR numbers and had also given the cehque numbers, name of the bankers. The assessing officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account holders, Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) has held as under: \"That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessee's. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they are creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so- called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the respondent could not do anything further. In the premises, If the tribunal came to the conclusion that the Respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence\". RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. [2006] 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.) where assessee-company had received share application money from a company and from an individual investor through Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. banking channels and had furnished confirmation of investment in share capital by said company and had also proved existence of said individual investor, it could be said that assessee had proved genuineness of said transaction and, therefore, it is held, assessing officer cannot make any addition to income of assessee in respect of said share application money by treating same as unexplained cash credit under section 68. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income. 7. It has also been brought on record that the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal had already considered and decided the identical issue involving same lenders in the following cases and decided in favour of respective assessee’s 1. ITO Vs. M/s Jai Tara Carriers Pvt Ltd., in ITA No. 1705/Kol/2016 2. Manoj Madanlal Chhajed Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 1178/Pun/2023. 3. DCIT Vs. Vikas Deep Sales Pvt Ltd 4. M/s. Bhumika Ispat Udyog s. DCIT, in ITA No. 1232/Del/2017 5. DCIT Vs. Deobnair Tie-up Pvt Ltd, in ITA No. 3055/Del/2022 Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 6. ITO Vs. Cinflex Infotech Pvt Ltd., in ITA No. 6695/Del/2017. 7. ITO Vs. Logic Infotech Ltd, in ITA No. 1379/Kol/2024 8. M/s Brahmaputra Finlease Pvt ltd., Vs. DCIT In ITA Nos. 3333 & 3334/Del/2017. 9. Blue Circle Organics Pvt Ltd., Vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 2113/Mum/2022 10. Namokar Builders Pvt Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 762/Kol/2022 8. Apart from above, the coordinate Bench of IAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd., in ITAT No. 612 & 613/Mum/2023 had also dealt with the identical issue involving same lenders and under same allegation about concerns of entry provider Praveen Agarwal Group. The operative portion of the order of the Bench is contained para 3 to 15 of its order and the same is reproduced herein below: 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate, property and project development and also deals in trading of shares and stocks. Assessee filed its return on 27.11.2014 reporting a total loss of Rs.2,97,997/-. Present appeal is the second round of litigation, since in the first round, coordinate bench had set aside the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer on the appeal filed by the department, with a direction to carry out further necessary investigation/verification as to whether the amount of loan along with interest was repaid by the assessee or not. Ld. Assessing Officer was also directed to bring on record any other evidence to prove that loans were not genuine. The said direction was given by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 27.12.2018. The direction so given is reproduced for ready reference. “Therefore, keeping in view the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to carry out further necessary investigations /verification as to whether the amount of loan along with interest, if any, was repaid by the assessee or not and thereafter pass afresh order. The AO is also at liberty to bring on record any other evidence to prove that loans were not genuine. It is needless here to Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. mention that before passing afresh order of assessment, the AO shall provide sufficient opportunity of to the assessee.” 4. In the year under consideration, assessee had taken unsecured loans of Rs.12.30Crores out of which ld. Assessing Officer in the second round has made addition of Rs.75 lakhs in respect of two lender parties. Ld. Assessing Officer has also disallowed claim of interest expenditure on the said two loans as well as on two other loans of parties which had opening balance of unsecured loan. The details of the additions so made in the second round of litigation is tabulated below: Sr. No. Name of the Party Addition of loan taken under section 68 Disallowance of interest paid on loan under section 69C (Amount in INR) 1 Abhilasha Export Pvt. Ltd. 45,00,000 3,84,247 2 Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. 30,00,00 1,56,575 3 Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. -- 3,00,000 4 Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd -- 1,12,500 Total 75,00,000 9,53,322 4.1. In the set aside proceedings, assessee was asked to submit the details and documents to prove the genuineness of the loans and details of their repayment. Ld. Assessing Officer also issued notices u/s. 133(6) to all the four lenders, two from whom fresh loans were taken, totalling to Rs.75 lakhs and the other two in whose case interest expenditure was added u/s. 69C. Out of the four parties, only one, i.e. Link Point Infrastructure Limited complied with the said notice. Assessee was also asked to produce the four lender parties for verification for which it expressed its inability by stating that parties won't comply with this request as the loans have already been repaid. On this, assessee requested the ld. Assessing Officer to issue summons to the said parties for necessary verification required by him. ld. Assessing Officer took an adverse view on expression of this inability by the assessee. He relied on the findings of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal where it was held that the said companies were used for providing Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. accommodation entries and thus, completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.75 lakhs as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 and of Rs.9,53,322/- as unexplained expense u/s.69C. 4.2. In order to establish the identity and credit worthiness of the lender parties and genuineness of the transactions, assessee submitted all the corroborative documentary evidences which are placed on record. Details of the same is listed below: A. Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. i. Copy of assessee bank statements highlighting the bank transaction for loan ii. Copy of acknowledgement of return filed by Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. iii. Copy of loan conformation iv. Copy of financial of Alishan Estate Pvt. Ltd. B. Abhilasha Exports Pvt. Ltd. i. Copy of assessee bank statements highlighting the bank transaction for loan ii. Copy of acknowledgment of return filed for Abhilash ExportsPvt. Ltd. iii. Copy of loan conformation iv. Copy of financial of Abhilasha Export Pvt. Ltd. 4.3. On these set of documents and details furnished by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any further enquiries so as to bring on record the evidences to establish that the loans were not genuine which would have met the compliance requirement of the direction of the coordinate bench so given. ld. CIT(A) analysed the documents and details furnished by the assessee for each of the lender parties and arrived at a conclusion that assessee has discharged its onus adequately as contemplated u/s. 68.The observations and findings of the ld. CIT(A) on each of the parties is extracted below. “7.4. From the details, it is seen that the lender M/s Abhilasha exports Pvt ltd has shown returned income of Rs 10,56,608/-for the AY 2011-12. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 17,36,86,659/-. As on 1/4/2010, there is a debit balance of Rs 35,22,192/- in the name of appellant in the books of the lender company. The amount of Rs 45,00,000/- has advanced to the appellant company by cheque on 30/7/2010. Interest of Rs 181,880/- and Rs 74,434/- has been paid by the appellant company on 6/1/2011. Further the appellant company has paid repaid an amount of Rs 60,00,000/- on 6/1/2011. i.e. in the same financial year. The closing balance as on 31/3/2011 is Rs 20,89,508/-. This amount has Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. been repaid in FY 2011-12. The lender company has sufficient funds in the bank at the time of the advancing the loan. 7.5. In the case of the other lender M/s Alishan Estates Pvt ltd, the returned income for AY 2011-12 is Rs 4,41,908/-. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 36,34,78,814/-/-. The amount of Rs 30,00,000/- has advanced to the appellant company by RTGS on 28/4/2010. Interest of Rs 1,56,575/- has been has been paid by the appellant company on 6/1/2011. TDS of Rs 15658/- has been deducted. The appellant company has paid repaid an amount of Rs 30,00,000/- on 6/1/2011. i.e. in the same financial year. I am of the view that the appellant has provided the documents in support of genuineness of the loan.” 5. Keeping the direction of the Coordinate Bench in the context, it is noted that ld. Assessing Officer has based his findings on the investigation wing in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal. No new evidence has been brought on record by the ld. Assessing Officer to prove that the loans are not genuine.No attempt has been made to establish the trail of funds from the assessee to the lender to indicate that the funds of the assessee are routed back in the form of unsecured loans. The only factor which ld. Assessing Officer has stressed upon is that assessee has not complied with the notices issued u/s. 133(6) and has not produced the lender companies for examination and thus, resorted to an adverse view. 5.1. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that the loans taken by the assessee have been repaid which has been established with corroborative documentary evidences. The stand taken by the assessee expressing its inability to produce the parties is justifiable and reasonable as the parties need not turn up once their loans have been repaid. Accordingly, the stand taken by the assessee u/s.133(6) and non-production of the lender parties is not a justifiable basis for making the addition. Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. Assessing Officer to disprove the documentary evidences placed on record and point out deficiencies or defects in the same. These documents evidently speak about the identity and credit worthiness of the lender companies as well as the genuineness of the transaction undertaken by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has considered all these factors and has held in favour of the assessee as the onus casted u/s. 68 has been adequately discharged. Loans have been repaid along with interest on which TDS has been done.There is no new evidence or record placed on the file to prove that the loans are not genuine. 5.2. In respect of addition made u/s. 69C towards interest expense on these loans, since the loans from the two lenders namely, Abhilasha Export Pvt. Ltd. Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. and Alishan Estates Pvt. Ltd. have been upheld to be genuine and the addition so made has been deleted, the interest on the same is also an allowable expenditure and the addition so made u/s. 69C is not justified. 5.3. In respect of interest to the other two parties, it is noted that the loans were not taken in the year under consideration, but are opening balance from the earlier years. No addition has been made u/s.68 in respect of these loans from Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Link point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Further, assessee has placed on record relevant documents to establish the genuineness of these parties. Thus, the interest expenditure on the outstanding loan brought forward as an opening balance in the year under consideration cannot be said to be non-genuine and the interest so paid is an allowable expenditure. Interest paid by the assessee is through proper banking channel and required TDS has been done. Considering overall facts of the case and documentary evidences placed on record, the addition so made in respect of loan taken during the year u/s.68 and interest expense u/s.69C are deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld. 5.4. In the result, appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed. 6. In appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 613/Mum/2025, the details of additions made is tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 6.1. Additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer are on three counts. First, unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-;second, unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs. 73,00,000/-; and third, unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of Rs.18,26,044/-.It is worth noting that not only the addition has been made for loan taken by the assessee during the year, but also on the repayment of the loans. In this assessment year, case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata on the findings of the search action in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal group. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee is one such Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. beneficiary company who had entered into transactions of accommodation entries with the concerns of Praveen Agarwal group and thus, the assessment was completed by making the aforesaid additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had furnished elaborate details along with documentary evidences for each of the parties for which addition has been made either u/s. 68 or section69 or section 69C. The details so furnished by the assessee are taken note of by ld. CIT(A) in his order in a tabulated form. The same is extracted below for ready reference: Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 6.2. From the above table, it is noted that exhaustive details were furnished on record and the same forms part of the paper book placed before us. The index of the paper book containing the aforesaid details is reproduced for ready reference: Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 6.3. Ld. Assessing Officer did not point out any deficiency or defect in the details so furnished by the assessee. However, assessee was asked to produce the parties in person for verification which assessee could not. This led to an adverse view taken by the ld. Assessing Officer for making the addition. However, ld. CIT(A) analysed and examined the details so furnished by the assessee and recorded his observations for each of the parties. The observations made in respect of the four parties from whom loans were taken Printed from counselvise.com 25 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. during the year and addition was made u/s. 68 aggregating to Rs.1,45,00,000 are reproduced for ready reference: A. Sampark Advisory Services Pvt ltd has returned income of Rs 14,078/-. It has shown reserves and surplus of Rs 49,50,90,580/-and turnover of Rs 30,37,67,187/-. Amount of Rs 60,00,000/- has be received by appellant through RTGS on 24/11/2011. Interest of Rs 1,96,721/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 19,672/- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 7/2/2013, 12/2/2013 and 4/2/2014. B. Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt ltd has returned income of Rs 3,68,742/-. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 88,65,59,378/-and turnover of Rs 53,96,61,749/- .Amount of Rs 10,00,000/- has is received through RTGS on 10/06/2011. Interest of Rs 60,656/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 6,066- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 13/2/2014. C. Shridhan Jewellery Pvt ltd has returned income of Rs 73,408/-for the AY 2012-13. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 493,69,44,898/-and turnover of Rs 25,36,00,074/-. Amount of Rs 25,00,000/- has is received through RTGS on 26/05/2011. Interest of Rs 1,59,324/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 15,932/- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 3/2/2014. D. NeelkamalDealcomm Pvt Ltd has returned income of Rs 3,69,708/-. It has reserves and surplus of Rs 88,19,06,966/-and turnover of Rs 50,20,54,673/-. Amount of Rs 50,00,000/- is received by RTGS on 27/05/2011. Interest of Rs 3,17,623/- has been charged on the same. TDS of Rs 31,762/- has been deducted on the interest. The entire amount has been repaid with the interest on 11/1/2014 and 13/1/2014. 7. From the factual analysis as stated above and the corroborative documentary evidence placed on record, it is evident that assessee has discharged its onus casted u/s. 68 of the Act to establish identity of the lender companies and their creditworthiness as well as genuineness of the transactions. The onus was on the Assessing Officer to prove that the loans are not genuine for which nothing cogent has been brought on record except for findings of the investigation wing in the case of Shri Praveen Agrawal group. There is nothing on record to establish trail of funds from the assessee to the lender company so as to indicate that assessee's funds have been routed back to it in the form of unsecured loans. It is also evident that the lender companies are going concerns having sufficient reserves and surplus to advance loan to the assessee which has been undertaken through proper banking channel. Due interest has been paid by the assessee which has been subjected to TDS. More importantly, the entire loan taken by the assessee has been repaid along with interest for which relevant documentary evidences are placed on record. Printed from counselvise.com 26 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 7.1. In respect of addition of Rs.18,26,044/-u/s. 69C, it is noted that the same represents interest on the unsecured loans taken from 9 parties by the assessee. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, since these loans were treated as non-genuine, the interest payment thereon was added as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C. 7.2. Ld. CIT(A) has given his fact-based findings on the submissions made by the assessee. From the perusal of the same, it is noted that out of the 9 parties, loan from four parties namely Skylight Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Jagaddhatri Deelcom Pvt.Ltd., Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Link Point Infrastructure Pvt .Ltd. were taken in the earlier years. No addition was made u/s.68 in respect of loans taken from these four parties in the earlier years. Their loan balances are coming as opening balance in the year under consideration. Assessee has paid interest on these opening balances of the loans to these four parties which was subjected to TDS. These transactions are adequately reported and disclosed in the books of accounts. Furthermore, these loans along with interest have been repaid in the subsequent year for which documentary evidences are placed on record. Considering overall facts of the case and documentary evidences placed on record, the addition so made in respect of loans taken during the year u/s.68 are deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld. 7.3. In respect of the other four parties wherein the additions were made u/s. 68 for loans taken during the year, the same have been held to be genuine and the addition so made u/s.68 has been deleted. These four parties are Samparg Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., ShridhanJewelryPvt. Ltd. and Neel Kamal Deelcom Pvt. Ltd. Since unsecured loans from these parties has been treated as genuine, the interest payment on the same are also held to be genuine and allowable. Addition so made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69C is not justified and is deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld. 7.4. In respect of unsecured loan from Abhilasha Exports, the said loan has been treated as genuine while adjudicating appeal for Assessment Year 2011- 12 in the above paragraphs. The addition made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.68 in that Assessment Year has been deleted. Accordingly, interest on the said loan added by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69C stands deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld. 7.5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances as discussed above, the entire addition of Rs.18,26,044/- u/s.69C towards interest expense on Printed from counselvise.com 27 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. unsecured loans is deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are thus, upheld. 8. Furthermore, there is an addition of Rs.73 lakhs u/s.69 on account of repayment of loans which has been treated unexplained investment by the ld. Assessing Officer. Assessee has made repayment of loan to the two parties namely, Skylight Distributions Pvt. Ltd. which had the opening balance of loan and part of it was paid during the year amounting to Rs.53 lakhs. The second party is Abhilash Exports Pvt. Ltd., to which Rs.20 lakhs was repaid, out of Rs.45 lakhs taken in the preceding years, i.e. Assessment Year 2011-12. According to the assessee, these amounts represents repayment of unsecured loan and not investment as contemplated u/s. 69 of the Act. These loan repayments are through proper banking channel and duly accounted for in the books of accounts. In the case of repayment to Abhilash Exports Pvt. Ltd., the unsecured loan taken during the year Assessment Year 2011-12 has already been upheld to be genuine and the additions so made in this respect has been deleted. The repayment of the said loan cannot be treated as unexplained investment as done by ld. Assessing Officer by applying section 69. In respect of the repayment of Rs.53 lakhs to Skylight Distributions Pvt. Ltd., assessee has placed on record the relevant documents based on which it is noted that assessee had taken loan of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.1 crore in Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Accordingly, repayment of the said loan cannot be treated as unexplained investment for the purpose of section 69 as they are duly recorded in the books of accounts and repaid through proper banking channel. 8.1. Provisions of section 69 are applicable only if any investment is found to be made outside the books of accounts. In the present case, the repayments of unsecured loan have been made through the bank account of the assessee and are duly recorded in the books. Accordingly, the addition so made by the ld. Assessing Officer, treating these repayments of loan as unexplained investment u/s.69 are deleted. The findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are upheld. 8.2. Considering the above discussion and factual matrix and the details and documents placed on record and adequately examined and verified by ld. CIT(A) to give his fact-based findings, the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 2012-13 are deleted and the findings so arrived at by ld. CIT(A) are upheld. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 28 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 10. In the appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, in ITA No.616/Mum/2025, the details of additions made by ld. Assessing Officer on account of repayment of loans for which provisions of section 69 are applied and disallowance of interest paid on these loans which were repaid, by applying provisions of section 69C are tabulated below: 10.1. From the above tabulated details, it is noted that assessee repaid the loans taken by it in the preceding years from six parties. The additions made Printed from counselvise.com 29 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. in respect of these parties in the preceding years i.e., 2011-12 and 2012-13, specially in the case of Sampark Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and Neelkamal Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. have been upheld to be genuine and the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.68 in Assessment Year 2012-13 has already been deleted in terms of our above observations and findings by upholding the findings of ld. CIT(A). In the present year, assessee has made the repayment of these loans, taken in the earlier years and therefore, cannot be treated as a transaction u/s.69 to hold them as un-explained investments. 10.2. In respect of repayment of loan to Skylight Distributions Pvt. Ltd., we have already given our observations and findings, while dealing with the same party in Assessment Year 2012-13, when part repayment was made. In the year under consideration, assessee has repaid amount of Rs.62 lakhs for which addition has been made u/s.69. Our observations and findings given in respect of this party in Assessment Year 2012-13 applies mutatis mutandis in this year. Furthermore, in respect of the other two parties, namely, Jagadhatri DealcommPvt. Ltd. and Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd., it is noted that the loans were taken by the assessee in the earlier years, which have not been added u/s.68 by the Revenue. In the year under consideration, assessee has only repaid the unsecured loans from the two parties taken in the earlier years. Corroborating all the documentary evidences placed on record, it is not a case of unexplained investments falling within the meaning u/s.69, all these loans and their subsequent repayments are have been duly recorded in the books of accounts in their respective years and therefore, the primary condition for applying section 69 is not satisfied. 10.3. The details of documentary evidences in respect of each of the six parties furnished by the assessee before the authorities below are placed in the paper book. The index of the paper book is reproduced for ready reference: Printed from counselvise.com 30 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com 31 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 11. We have perused the findings and observations of ld. CIT(A), while dealing with the additions so made, who has elaborately analysed and examined the documents and explanations given by the assessee. The additions so made by ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69 on account of repayment of unsecured loans have been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings so arrived at. Accordingly, the additions so made ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69 are deleted and the finding of ld. CIT(A) thereon is upheld. 12. In respect of addition of Rs.11,43,658/- made u/s.69C on account of interest expense on the unsecured loans taken by the assessee from these six parties, since the loans have been treated as genuine in terms of above observations and finding, the addition so made by ld. Assessing Officer is uncalled for. Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the factual matrix on this account. He has noted that these interest payments are through proper banking channel and have been subjected to TDS. These have been adequately disclosed and accounted for in the books of accounts. Furthermore, the entire loans along with interest have been repaid and therefore, the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer were deleted. 12.1. Considering the overall factual matrix and the documentary evidences placed on record, corroborated by explanations furnished which has been adequately analysed by ld. CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of ld. CIT(A), to uphold the deletion so made. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed. 14. Assessee has also placed on record a legal paper book whereby, assessee has demonstrated that out of the 10 parties, six lender parties have been dealt by the Coordinate Benches of ITAT in several other appeals, whereby these six lender parties have been held to be genuine, for which the additions made u/s.68 or 69 were deleted. The details of the judicial precedents, wherein the six parties have been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench is tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 32 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 14.1. From the perusal of the aforesaid decisions, we draw force for upholding the findings arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) in all the three appeals. Printed from counselvise.com 33 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 14.2. We also draw our force from the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 58 (Pan) wherein it was held that once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of the subscriber companies (lender companies in the present case), the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case ofCIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom)wherein it was held as under: “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The Assessing Officer did nothing except issuing summons which were ultimately returned back with an endorsement \"not traceable\". The Assessing Officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach the shareholders since all the relevant material details and particulars were given by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. No substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.'' 15. In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. Now coming to the issue of re-opening of the assessment is concerned, on this issue we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we found that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2015 after the Printed from counselvise.com 34 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. expiry of four years from the end of the year under consideration, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2019, whereas the provisions of Sec. 147 of the Act mandates that after 4 years, reopening requires a failure on the part of assessee to disclose the material facts “fully and truly”. However in the assessment orders there is no findings of such features on the part of assessee. It is also important to mention that the issue of unsecured loan was explicitly examined during the original assessment and the assessee had submitted all the required documents at that time. 10. Even otherwise the reopening is based on incorrect facts and apparent non-application of mind as in the reasons recorded for reopening. It has been stated by AO that the initial return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act which is factually incorrect as a scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the reopening in the present case is based on mere change of opinion as the same is based solely on the information from investigation wing and no independent inquiry or verification was carried out by the AO, who had acted mechanically on such information and thus violates the proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act. 11. Even otherwise no new facts or circumstances have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we Printed from counselvise.com 35 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence keeping in view the decisions of the coordinate Benches and while adhearing to the principles of judicial consistency and judicial discipline, we uphold the decision of deletion of addition made u/s 68 of the Act by AO and accordingly the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 12. Since we have upheld the deletion of addition made u/s 68 of the Act there is no need to adjudicate other grounds raised by the revenue. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 12/01/2026 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 36 ITA No. 138//Mum/2025 Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "