INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 52(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI V. M/S NOVEL INFRATECH, NEW DELHI

ITA 188/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department's appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted the addition of \\u20b97,86,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made on the grounds that the unsecured loans received by the assessee from various parties were unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal examined the evidences and arguments presented by both the revenue and the assessee, including the responses to notices under sections 133(6) and 131 of the Act, and the remand reports submitted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's case was based on suspicion without concrete evidence, and the assessee had adequately demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772477 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: N.C. Cables [2017] 391 ITR 11 (Delhi), Shri Jawaharlal [2016] 382 ITR 453, SA Builder (288 ITR 1), Carissa Investment (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 6448/Del/2016 dated 22/01/2021, Balaji Infra Solutions P. Ltd in ITA.No.4764/Del./2017 dated 13/04/2021, ACIT, Central Circle -13, New Delhi vs Supreme Placement Services (P) Ltd dated 17th March 2021 in ITA No 5259/Del./2013, D. J. Stock Broking Private limited in ITA No 313/Ahd/2017 dated 03/03/2020, Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad in ITA No. 3800/Del./2017, Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, vs Ito, Ward-25(2), New Delhi in ITA No. 7130/Del./2019, Pr. CIT Vs Ami Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. reported in 116 taxmann.com 34, Ajay Gupta Vs. DCIT 81 Taxmann.com 462 (Del- ITAT), CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 70 taxmann.com 95 (Del), CIT VS. Sunil Aggarwal 64 Taxmann.com 107 (Del), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (1) Indore vs Chain House International (P.) Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47 (Madhya Pradesh)/ [2019] 408 ITR 561, DCIT vs Rohini Builders 2001(3) TMI 9, Modi Creations (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 354 ITR 282, Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd., etc. ITA. No.71 of 2015 dated 12th August, 2015, CIT Rajkot-1 vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat), DAULATRAM RAWATMULL, (1964) 53 ITR 574, Sambhav Buildwell (P) Ltd vs. ACIT vide ITA No. 1938/Del/2022 in its order dated 30/10/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Accommodation entries; Block assessment; Source of fund; Bogus loan; FORM 26AS; Bogus
• Section: 147; 143(3); 132; 68; 131; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 188/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi Vs. M/s. Novel Infratech, Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAJFN0187A Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.188/Del/2025 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/10683485170 dated 04.09.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-32(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, we find that the appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 10 days. Considering the reasons adduced by the revenue in the condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 2 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act in the sum of ₹7,86,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee firm had raised unsecured loans aggregating to ₹7.86 crores from the following parties as under: – Name, address PAN of the loanees Loan Amount received (Rs.) Interest Credited (Rs.) Repaid During the year (Rs) TDS (Rs.) Closing Balance (Rs.) Sh. Chander Kishore Dhingra K-1998 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi PAN: AAJPD8728P 20,00,00 0 20,00,000 Shri Sunil Gupta W-137 Greater Kailash, New Delhi. PAN: AAEPG4792K 25,00,00 0 25,00,000 Sh Parmod Khanna (since deceased), Krishanapura House, Panipat- 132103, PAN: AHGPK8420P 50,00,00 0 80,137 5072123 8014 Smt Reeta Khanna Wife of Late Sh Parmod Khanna, Krishanapura House Panipat- 132103PAN: AJBPK8396D 49,00,00 0 6,444 49,05,799 Sh Rajeev Khanna Krishanapura House, Panipat- 132103 PAN: ACEPK8837H 4,500,00 0 45,370 4,540,833 4,537 Smt Neeru Khanna Wife of Sh Rajeev Khanna, Krishanapura House Panipat- 4,600,00 0 6,805 681 4,606,124 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 3 132103 PAN: AIOPK7268A Nakul Aggarwal, s/o Praveen Aggarwal (partner) C-2/47 SDA New Delhi-110016 PAN: ADFPA9588D 104,334 5,100,000 5,100,000 10,434 93,900 Parnika Mercantile Pvt Ltd. B-209 Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai- 400053 PAN: AADCP6247F 5,000,00 0 5,000,000 Chitravali Barter Pvt Ltd. J/J8 Sushil Abas Aptt Aswani Nagar, PO Baguiati, Kolkatta-700159 PAN: AABCC0913G 5,500,00 0 439,996 273,942 44,000 5,622,054 Twenty First Century India Ltd. 9/12 Lai Bazar Street, 3rd Floor Block B, Kolkatta-700001 PAN AAACT4735A 9,500,00 0 759,999 473,176 76,001 9,710,822 Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd. 4, BBD, Bangle Step House, 5th Floor, Room No 77, Kolkatta- 700001. PAN: AABCN8093Q 30,000,0 00 1,566,541 18,632,488 156,656 12,777,39 7 Total: Rs. 78,600,0 00 3,009,626 38,592,562 3,00,968 4,27,16,09 6 5. The ld AO sought to examine the veracity of the loans and directed the assessee to prove the 3 ingredients of Section 68 of the Act i.e. identity of the lenders, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee furnished all the relevant details before the ld AO. Later on the ld AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the lenders which stood duly served. The replies were also directly furnished by the parties before the ld AO in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. But Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 4 the ld AO observed that the replies were posted from same Post Office, they were in same handwriting and colour of the envelope were also same. The ld AO also noted that some of the parties were residing in Mumbai but replies were filed by persons from Delhi. The ld AO also issued commission u/s 131(1)(d) to Kolkata Investigation Wing who made enquiries with some of the lender companies. The Kolkata Investigation Wing suggested that the lender company had admitted that they were providing accommodation entries. 6. The ld AO proceeded to treat the entire unsecured loans received from the parties in total sum of ₹7.86 crores as unexplained cash credit on the following grounds:- “Sh Chander Kishore Dhingra Assessing Officer made the addition of loan received from Mr. Dhingra since the burden of proof u/s 68 of the Act is upon the assessee and the conditions of section 68 were not satisfied. The assessee submitted ITR, confirmation and bank statement in support of the transactions and the reply was also filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The assessee also submitted before the Assessing Officer that the loan was repaid during the year. Sh Sunil Gupta Assessing Officer made the addition of loan received from Mr. Gupta since the burden of proof u/s 68 of the Act is upon the assessee and the conditions of section 68 were not satisfied. The assessee submitted ITR, confirmation and bank statement in support of the transactions and the reply was also filed by the assessee in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 5 response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The assessee also submitted before the Assessing Officer that the loan was repaid during the year. Pramod Khanna, Rajeev Khanna Neeru Khanna And Reeta Khanna Assessing Officer made the addition of loan received from all of the lender of Khanna family because on going through the bank statements furnished by all of the lenders it was seen that the amount was first received from somewhere else and then immediately transferred to the assessee. Further the notice u/s 131 of the act was issued to the lenders but the lender was not produced which shows that there was non cooperative attitude of the assessee. The burden of proof u/s 68 of the Act is cast upon the assessee and the conditions of section 68 were not satisfied. The assessee submitted ITR, confirmation and bank statement in support of the transactions and the reply was also filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act except for 2 individuals as the notice could not be served on them due to incomplete address. Loan from Nakul Aggarwal The Assessing officer made addition since before giving loan of Rs 50 lakhs on 30/05/2012 he has received the same amount on the same day from somebody into its bank account and was transferred into the bank accounts of the assessee and he was not having sufficient amount in his bank account before advancing the loan. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 6 During the course of assessment, the confirmation, bank statement and ITR of Mr Nakul Agarwal was provided. It was also mentioned that the amount was received by the lender from a firm in which he is partner. Loan from Parnika Mercantile Pvt Ltd Even though the lender company has its registered office in Mumbai, where notice u/s 133(6) was sent, the lender company furnished its reply from a person at Delhi. The company was not having considerable income commensurating with the quantum of loan given and no interest was paid on the loan taken. During the course of assessment proceedings, the complete details such as ITR, confirmation and bank account showing the transactions were filed by the assessee. Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd The Assessing Officer made the addition of loan from the lender as: (i) The lender company gave money to the assessee firm immediately after receiving money from its own lender or receiving from its debtors. The lender company had shown total income for A.Y. 2013-14 at Rs. 3,780 only. The registered office of lender company is located at Jalandhar, Punjab whereas its bank a/c through which the subject unsecured loan was advanced to the assessee company is maintained at City Union Bank, Kolkata Branch. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 7 (ii) Part refund of loan of Rs 1,75,000 by the assessee firm has been again lent by the lender co to a sister concern of the assessee firm, viz Novell Buildwell LLP. Money credited as unsecured loan in assessee books is actually its own money and the same is being controlled by the assessee even after returning to the lender. Loan from Twenty First Century (India) Ltd and Chitrawali Barter Pvt Ltd The lender company gave money to the assessee firm immediately after receiving money credited into its bank account which has been stated to have been received from its own lender or receiving from its debtors. Further the AO has relied upon the statements of certain persons viz Sh Anil Kumar Khemka, Sh Abhishek Basu, Sh Raj Kumar Tharad, Sh Pradip Kumar Garg, Sh Mukesh Kumar wherein they have stated to have admitted that they were providing entries to various companies/parties on commission basis and the company Twenty First Century India Ltd and Chitrawali Barter Pvt Ltd were being controlled by one Mr Anil Kumar Khemka and his associates. Further in respect of loan from Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd, Twenty First Century (India) Ltd and Chitrawali Barter Pvt Ltd, the Assessing Officer send a notice u/s 133(6) to all the parties who had provided loan to the assessee and in response, the reply was alleged to have been made by same person and were sent from same post office with identical replies. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 8 The Assessing Officer has also stated that summons u/s 131 were issued to the parties by Investigation Wing Kolkata. The Assessing Officer based on the investigation wing report of Kolkata and relying upon the Income Tax Inspector Report had concluded that the companies were not in existence at the given address. In respect of Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd, Twenty First Century (India) Ltd and Chitrawali Barter Pvt Ltd, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer ITR, Bank Statement, Balance sheet and confirmation of all the parties in order to substantiate each and every loan transaction made by the assessee. The assessee filed proof for payment of interest and evidence to show that the amount was duly refunded in subsequent year and there was no outstanding amount as the entire loan amount together with interest were refunded and there were no outstanding amount. The assessee submitted that the statements relied upon by the AO were in respect to bogus Long term capital gains being provided by Mr Anil Khemka, the main operator of the companies. The statements were used without bringing on record the relevance of statements with respect to loan transactions made by the assessee. None of the parties have admitted that they have provided bogus loans to assessee or any other parties. 7. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules as under:- 1. Reg: LOAN FROM SH NAKUL AGGARWAL: (i) Copy of Form 26AS of the Loanee for AY 2013-2014. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 9 (ii) Copy of Capital Account and copy of Loan Account of the loanee in the books of M/s Novell Construction, a partnership firm in which the loanee is a partner. (iii) Bank account of Novell Construction from where Rs 50,00,000 were paid to the loanee, of which Rs 10,00,000 were debited to capital account and Rs. 40,00,000 were debited to loan account on which Novell Construction charged interest from the loanee 2. LOANS FROM SH PARMOD KHANNA/SMT REETA KHANNA/RAJEEV KHANNA/SMT NEERU KHANNA: (i) Copies of Form 26AS of the four Loanees for AY 2013-2014. (ii) Certificate from the four loanees that no summons u/s 131 dated 08.03.2016 were received. (iii) Copies of medical records of Parmod Khanna showing that he was suffering from throat cancer (iv) Documents in support of source of source of funds in the accounts of the lenders 3. LOAN FROM M/S PARNIKA MERCANTILE PVT LTD. (i) Copy of Loan Account of the loanee company in the books of M/s Novell Construction (ii) Bank account of Novell Construction from where Rs 50,00,000 were refunded to the loanee company. 4. LOAN FROM M/s TWENTY FIRST CENTURY LIMITED. (i) Copy of Form 26AS of the Loanee coy for AY 2013-2014. (ii) Photocopy of a set of audited accounts of the loanee company for the accounting period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 10 (iii) Certificate from the loanee company denying any Inspector from The office of DDIT (Inv) visited their office in March 2016 to make any inquiries. (iv) Copy of Interest certificate from the loanee company for the period 1.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 (v) Copy of Renewal of certificate of Enlistment in the records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in evidence that the loanee company is in existence and carrying on business at the address given. (vi) Copy of assessment orders of the year in support that no cogence of the statements of Mr Anil Khemka or any other person as relied in case of assessee to make the addition of unsecured loan u/s 68 in case of assessee have not been considered relevant in the case of the loanee company. 5. LOAN FROM M/s CHITRAWALI BARTER PVT LIMITED. (i) Copy of Form 26AS of the Loanee coy for AY 2013-2014. (ii) Audited accounts of the loanee company for the year ended 31.03.2013. (iii) Certificate from the loanee company denying any Inspector from the Office of DDIT (Inv) visited their office in March 2016 to make any inquiries. (iv) Copy of Form 18 with challan, in evidence that the Loanee company is in existence at the address given. (v) Copy of assessment orders of the year in support that no cogence of the statements of Mr Anil Khemka or any other person as relied in case of assessee to make the addition of unsecured loan u/s 68 in case of assessee have pet beer considered relevant in the case of the loanee company. 6. LOAN FROM M/s NITIN HIRE PURCHASE PVT LIMITED. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 11 (i) Copy of Form 26AS of the Loanee coy for AY 2013-2014. (ii) Audited financial statements for the year ended 31.03.2013 (iii) Certificate from the loanee company denying any Inspector from the Office of DDIT (Inv) visited their office in March make any inquiries. (iv) Copy of Interest certificate from the loanee company for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 (v) Copy of Certificate of registration in the records of the Kolkatta Municipal Corporation, in evidence that the loanee company is in existence and carrying on business at the address given. (vi) Copy of assessment orders of the year in support that no cogence of the statements of Mr Anil Khemka or any other person as relied in case of assessee to make the addition of unsecured loan u/s 68 in case of assessee have not been considered relevant in the case of Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. 7. Loan from Sh Chander Kishore Dhingra / Sunil Gupta Assessee firm filed evidence in support of \"Source of source of funds\" in the bank accounts of the lenders. 8. These additional evidences were duly admitted and remand report was sought from the ld AO by the ld CIT(A). The ld AO submitted the remand report on 17.08.2017. The assessee submitted the scrutiny assessment orders in respect of 4 parties, namely M/s. Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Twenty First Century India Ltd, M/s. Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd and M/s. Novell Constructions. The ld AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 12 the Act to all these 4 parties on 15.12.2022 and called for certain details. All the 4 parties responded directly before the ld AO in the remand proceedings by uploading details in the ITBA portal. This fact is also duly acknowledged by the ld AO in the remand report. Despite this fact and despite placing of scrutiny assessment orders for certain parties, the ld AO still stated that the findings of the earlier AO be considered by the ld CIT(A). The assessee filed rejoinder to the remand report, party wise giving the source of source of each lenders. This rejoinder is enclosed in pages 14 to 24 of the order of ld CIT(A). Another remand report was furnished by the ld AO on 19.10.2023 to which also, the assessee furnished rejoinder. The main conclusion drawn by the ld AO in the remand report are summarised as under:  In respect of Nitin Hire purchase Pvt. Ltd., Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. and Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer has stated that assessee failed to produce the creditor and only letter were filed by them through speed post along with supporting documents. All the envelope in respect of all three creditors were identical and written by the same person.  Commission u/s 131(1)(d) was issued by DDIT (Investigation) Unit-1, Kolkata to conduct enquiries at the address of the lenders. The departmental inspector deputed to enquire about the said companies and he reported that offices could not be located/traced.  The AO has relied upon the statements of certain persons viz Sh Anil Kumar Khemka, Sh Abhishek Basu, Sh Raj Kumar Tharad, Sh Pradip Kumar Garg, Mukesh Kumar wherein they have stated to have admitted that they were providing entries to various companies/parties on commission basis and the company Twenty First Century India Ltd Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 13 and Chitrawali Barter Pvt Ltd were being controlled by one Mr Anil Kumar Khemka and his associates.  In respect of Parnika Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is having nil income which does not commensurate with the amount of loan given to the assessee that too without charging interest. Shri Nakul Aggarwal director of lender in his statement recorded 17.01.2017 could not substantiate that the company was doing any business.  Shri Nakul Agarwal, son of the partner of the assessee had received funds from firm Novell Construction in which he is partner and the same funds were transferred to the assessee. The firm Novell Construction did not have any substantial income.  Notice u/s 131 was issued to Shri Rajeev Khanna, Neeru Khanna, Pramod Khanna and Reeta Khanna but none of the them attended and showed their inability due to illness of Pramod Khanna and in absence of production of parties, the transaction could not be substantiated. Further all the entries in various individual bank account were showing similar pattern.  In respect of Shri Sunil Gupta, the bank statement was not sufficient to substantiate the source of funds. It was submitted that the funds were sourced from sale of land in Vasant Kunj but the same was not substantiated.  In respect of loan from Shri Chander Kishore Dhingra, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the bank statement presented by the assessee was not complete and repayment of loan was just an shallow argument since the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions is not proved. 9. The rejoinder to the remand report submitted by the assessee and all the rejoinders of the assessee were submitted to the ld AO for his Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 14 comments. The ld AO merely reiterated the earlier contentions. The summary of the rejoinder filed by the assessee is as under :- A. There is no evidence that there was any cash deposit in any of the account of the lenders. B. Although the assessee was not required by law to prove the source of source (for the impugned year), the assessee in all the cases established the genuineness and creditworthiness of source of source also. C. The assessee has submitted bank accounts, confirmations and ITR of all the parties and all the transactions were carried out through banking accounts. D. In most of the cases, interest was also paid after deduction of TDS and TDS certificates were also provided. E. All the loans have been repaid during the year or in the subsequent years. As on date, no loan is pending for repayment. F. All the parties have furnished documentary evidences to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. G. Copy of assessment orders were also filed, wherever applicable. 10. The ld CIT(A) considered the various reports of the ld AO and after due consideration of the rejoinders to the remand report filed by the assessee and various evidences placed on record, proceeded to delete the addition made in the sum of ₹7.86 crores on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 by observing as under:- A. The assessee was asked to produce the lender but only two lender (Nakul Aggarwal Director of Parnika Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the Assessing Officer and the others filed letters instead of personally appearing before the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 15 Assessing Officer despite ample opportunities being provided to them. B. The lenders were not having substantial income to commensurate the loan provided by them. C. DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata has reported that the companies Nitin Hire purchase Pvt. Ltd., Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. and Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd. were not found at their address. D. Various persons related to the companies Nitin Hire purchase Pvt. Ltd., Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. and Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd. have admitted that they are in the business of providing entries in lieu of commission. E. Parnika Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is not having any income and upon refund of loan by assessee, the funds were transferred to another firm controlled by the partner of assessee. F. Shri Nakul Agarwal received fund from firm Novell Construction to advance the loan to the assessee and the firm Novell Construction was not having any substantial income or business. G. The transaction of various members of Khanna family were of similar pattern and did not appear to be genuine. H. The loan from Shri Sunil Gupta was claimed to be from sale of land but it was not substantiated. I. The complete statement of Shri Chander Kishore Dhingra was not provided in support of the loan transaction. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 16 ………………………………. 20. On perusal of the case of the Assessing Officer, it is seen that the Assessing Officer had deep suspicion about the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in some cases. However, what is required is that such suspicion needs to be converted into evidence. The addition cannot be made on the basis of doubt / suspicion only. There has to be some positive evidence to establish the case of applicability of section 68. 21. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of N.C. Cables [2017] 391 ITR 11 (Delhi) and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Jawaharlal [2016] 382 ITR 453, has held that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take place of evidence. It was held that in order to prove the suspicion, the Assessing Officer should have brought on record, the conclusive and clinching evidence to prove that any unaccounted cash of assessee through multiple layers of unsecured loan from any lender was infused and that the same money came to the assessee in the form of unsecured loans. In absence of any such evidence, the impugned addition would be considered as made on mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures and without any evidence. Thus, assessee has argued that bereft of evidences, addition u/s. 68 of the Act cannot be made in its case. 22. One of the grounds for making addition is that the lenders did not have sufficient income of its own. In this regard, it is seen that addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be based on criteria of lower taxable income of depositor more particularly when assessee has Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 17 already explained sources of source in the hands of creditors and Assessing Officer has never established any cash trail against funds given to assessee. In this regard, various judicial pronouncements relied upon are as under:- (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builder (288 ITR 1). (ii) Delhi ITAT in case of Carissa Investment (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 6448/Del/2016 dated 22/01/2021. (iii) Delhi ITAT in case of Balaji Infra Solutions P. Ltd in ITA.No.4764/Del./2017 dated 13/04/2021. (iv) Delhi ITAT in the case of the ACIT, Central Circle -13, New Delhi vs Supreme Placement Services (P) Ltd dated 17th March 2021 in ITA No 5259/Del./2013. (v) Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of D. J. Stock Broking Private limited in ITA No 313/Ahd/2017 dated 03/03/2020. (vi) Decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad in ITA No. 3800/Del./2017. (vii) Decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, vs Ito, Ward- 25(2), New Delhi in ITA No. 7130/Del./2019. (viii) Pr. CIT Vs Ami Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. reported in 116 taxmann.com 34. 23. One of the allegations was that the assessee could not produce the persons before the Assessing Officer. This cannot be the ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has the powers of the court given u/s 131 to enforce the attendance of any person. In this regard, the Assessing Officer has powers of - Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 18 a. discovery and inspection; b. enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; c. compelling the production of books of accounts and other documents; d. issuing commissions. 24. Thus, the powers which the Assessing Officer has for gathering evidence cannot be handed over to the assessee. Once the assessee has furnished the details and address, the Assessing Officer ought to have conducted his enquiries including enforcing attendance. Enforcing the attendance of any person is the work/power of the Assessing Officer. When the assessee has discharged his onus by furnishing the documents, in that case, the onus shifts on the Assessing Officer to gather and bring on record the evidence contrary to the claim of the assessee. Therefore, just because the assessee could not enforce the attendance of lenders, it cannot be the ground for invoking section 68. 25. One of the grounds of the Assessing Officer was that on the given addresses, the parties do not exist. In this regard, the assessee has furnished its reply that the verification was not actually done. Without getting into the controversy as to whether the person actually verified the premise of the lenders or not, it is pertinent to note that all the letters were actually received by the lenders and they furnished their reply to the Assessing Officer Therefore, the allegation that the lenders did not exist on the given addresses does not seem plausible. It is also a matter of record that Shri Nakul Agarwal, director of one company attended and in his statement he Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 19 reiterated the existence of office of the company which was not found untrue by the Assessing Officer. 26. One of the allegations of the Assessing Officer was that all the replies in respect of lenders was made by same person. However, this allegation is not proved with any evidence. Further, there is no report of the forensic department to establish that the same person had prepared the reply. Even otherwise, it may have been that the same person or the same C.A may have prepared the reply. Such a fact can only be the starting point for making further investigation to gather evidences. However, this fact, even if true, does not qualify as evidence for invoking section 68. Even if such allegation of the Assessing Officer is true in that case also the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness do not get disproved. 27 One of the allegations of the Assessing Officer is that entry operator Shri Anil Kumar Khemka, Shri Abhishek Basu, Shri Raj Kumar Tharad, Shri Pradip Kumar Garg and Shri Mukesh Kumar in their statement under oath had stated that they were entry operators and that they were engaged in the business of giving accommodation entries. In this regard, it is noted that no such statement was rendered during the course of proceeding in the case of the assessee or before the Assessing Officer of the assessee or before the DDIT(Inv.) to whom commission was issued. The statement is claimed to have been given during the course of some other proceedings to the officers of the department. 28. It is seen that in the statements, the assessee’s name do not appear. Therefore, the presumption cannot be held against the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 20 assessee. Further, the assessee had requested for cross examination which was not granted. Thus, there was violation of fundamental principles of natural justice in so far as the cross examination of witness of the revenue was not granted. On this ground alone, the statement is liable to be not treated as admissible evidence. 29. The Assessing Officer has placed heavy reliance on the statement of the other persons made u/s 131 during the course of other proceedings before officer other than the Assessing Officer or the officer other than the one to whom commission was issued. The provisions of section 132(4) deals with using the statement in evidence. The same is reproduced as under:- \"The authorised officer may, during the course of search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, document, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under this Act.\" 30. In the above-mentioned section, the word \"used as evidence\" is not there. Had the section used the word \"used as evidence\", in that case, the statement alone could have been the evidence for making addition or reaching a conclusion. 31. The section uses the word \"used in evidence\". The usage of the word \"used in evidence\" signifies that if there are any other corroborative evidence or documentary evidence, in that case the statement can be used as one of the evidences. Thus, the section Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 21 presumes that the only statement cannot be the basis of reaching a conclusion and making addition. 32. While appreciating the evidences, the Assessing Officer has deciphered entire statement in such a way that all the transactions of loan are non-genuine transactions, However, the same is contrary to provisions of the Act. The statements need to be corroborated by the documentary evidences in order to invoke section 68. No addition can be made while computing taxable income of any assessee merely relying upon such statements when no documentary evidences suggest that assessee has obtained accommodative loan or cash is exchanged in such transaction. 33. The Assessing Officer was not justified in relying on the statement not corroborated by other documentary evidences in respect of the impugned transaction of the assessee. In this regard, reliance is placed in the following cases:- 1. Ajay Gupta Vs. DCIT 81 Taxmann.com 462 (Del- ITAT) Para 7- No addition can be made or sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at the time of search, for which no corroborative material is found. In order to make a genuine and legally sustainable addition on the basis of surrender during search, it is sine qua non that some incriminating material must have been found to correlate the undisclosed income with such statement. Thus, where surrender made by the assessee's elder brother on his behalf Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 22 on account of commission income was not backed by any material/evidence indicating the involvement of the assessee in the agency business, no addition could be made to the assessee's income on basis of such surrender. 2. CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 70 taxmann.com 95 (Del) A statement recorded under section 132(4) can form basis for a block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search 3. CIT VS. Sunil Aggarwal 64 Taxmann.com 107 (Del) Where assessee during search conducted under section 132 made admission that a sum of Rs. 86 lakhs seized from his employee belonged to him and it represented undisclosed income and subsequently he retracted above admission and offered an explanation that said amount was verifiable from records and books of account and Assessing Officer did not accept explanation and added said amount in income as unexplained cash credit, impugned addition was not justified. 34. It is relevant to refer to decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (1) Indore vs Chain House International (P.) Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47 (Madhya Pradesh)/ [2019] 408 ITR 561, wherein, it was held that once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no addition could be made as cash credit. The facts of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 23 the case are similar to that of the assessee’s case as in instant case the assessee has duly discharged his onus by proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender. The Hon'ble Court has held that merely on the basis of third-party statements without any evidence or material on record to prove that the assessee has received accommodation entry. In this case, the investigation wing, Delhi was having some information relating to statements of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) and Shri Sawan Kumar Jajoo (Jajoo) and who have stated that they were engaged through the web of various companies including the five companies who had contributed to the share capital of M/s. Bharat Securities (P) Ltd, in providing accommodation entries to various entities and various statements were also referred in assessment order. The loan taken from companies managed by Shri Shrish Shah, entry operator according to department was treated as bogus loan by Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has concluded that assessee company having receipt of share application money through bank channel and furnished complete details of bank statements, copy of accounts, complied with notices issued which clearly prove identity and creditworthiness of depositor and genuineness of transaction of the share applicant was proved in the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Delhi High Court and Supreme Court and on this basis, entire addition was deleted. This order was further confirmed by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in 98 taxmann.com 47 and further SLP filed by Department was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 103 Taxmann.com 435. 35. It is also the presumption of law that the nature of the evidence or information gathered during the proceedings should be of such Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 24 nature that it instead of only raising doubt, the evidence establishes some wrong doing. In some instances, the information, document or evidence gathered, may raise serious doubts or suspicion in relation to transaction reflected in regular books or documents maintained in the ordinary course of business. However, even in such event the Assessing Officer is not permitted to straightaway make addition unless he brings on record further corroborative material or evidence to transform his suspicion to belief and conclude that the transaction reflected in regular books or documents did not represent the true state of affairs. 36. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Sambhav Buildwell (P) Ltd vs. ACIT vide ITA No. 1938/Del/2022 in its order dated 30/10/2023 has held as under: 6. It is a fact that pursuant to the search conducted on the assessee and its group companies, simultaneously a search action was also carried out on Mr. Deepak Agarwal and Mr. Mukesh Kumar who were alleged by the tax authorities to be accommodation entry providers. We find the sole basis for making addition in the hands of the assessee by treating the receipt of unsecured loans as accommodation entries was the statement of the Director of the assessee company recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act and again u/s. 131 of the Act. The sald statement is not supported with any collaborative material found during the course of search on the assessee as well as in the search of the above entry operators and there was absolutely no material found during the search which would Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 25 even remotely suggest that the loans received by the assessee represented accommodation entry. 37. The issue of discharging of onus was decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Modi Creations (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 354 ITR 282 wherein it has held as under:- \"It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68 of the I.T. Act only sets up a presumption against the Assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of accounts of the Assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the Assessee. This burden, which is placed on the Assessee, shifts as soon as the Assessee establishes the authenticity of transactions as executed between the Assessee and its creditors. It is no part of the Assessee's burden to prove either the genuineness of the transactions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the Assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the sub-creditors.\" 38. It was observed as under: \"14. With this material on record in our view as far as the Assessee was concerned, it had discharged initial onus placed on it. In the event the revenue still had a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transactions in issue, or as regards the creditworthiness of the creditors, it would have had to discharge the onus which had shifted on to it. A bald assertion Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 26 by the ASSESSING OFFICER that the credits were a circular route adopted by the Assessee to plough back its own undisclosed income into its accounts, can be of no avail. The revenue was required to prove this allegation. An allegation by itself which is based on assumption will not pass muster in law. The revenue would be required to bridge the gap between the suspicions and proof in order to bring home this allegation. The ITAT, in our view, without adverting to the aforementioned principle laid stress on the fact that despite opportunities, the Assessee and/or laid strthe genuineness of the transaction. Based on this the ITAT Intentions of the Assessee as being mala fide. In our view the ITAT ought to have analyzed the material rather than be burdened by the fact that some of the creditors had chosen analyzed the material ral appearance before the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt about the material placed on record, which was largely bank statements of the any doubt about the material placedums, it could gather the necessary information from the sources to which the said information was attributable to. No such exercise had been conducted by the Assessing Officer. In any event what both the Assessing Officer and the ITAT lost track of was that it was dealing with the assessment of the company, l.e., the recipient of the loan and not that of its directors and shareholders or that of the sub-creditors. If it had any doubts with regard to their credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of the creditors and/or sub-creditors. [See CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 27 39. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd., etc. ITA. No.71 of 2015 dated 12th August, 2015 held as under: \"The sole basis for the Revenue to doubt their creditworthiness was the low income as reflected in their return of income. It was observed by the ITAT that the Assessing Officer had not undertaken any investigation of the veracity of the documents submitted by the assessee, the departmental appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court.\" 40. The Assessing Officer has further alleged that appellant had repaid a sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- to M/s Nitin Hire Purchase and the same was transferred to another group firm Novel Buildwell LLP. One of the partners of the assessee is also partner of Novel Buildwell LLP. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that in any account there was deposit of cash. The fact that loan was repaid in fact establishes that it was genuine. Had the loan been shown as outstanding in the accounts till date, then there may have been case of presumption against the assessee and in that case the credits may have been treated as non-genuine. Further, the Assessing Officer by stating the fact of rotation of fund, himself has inferred that the money belonged to the assessee group only. Therefore, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness is established and the credits from these parties does not qualify for addition u/s 68 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 28 41. One of the allegation of the Assessing Officer was that the loan from Parnika Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. was not genuine because when the loan was repaid to Parnika Mercantile by the assessee, the same was transferred to an another firm controlled by the partners of the assessee. Since the partner of the assessee and his family members are also director of Parnika mercantile Pvt. Ltd. so the repayment of funds to one of the group companies and subsequent transfer to another firm of the group cannot be alleged as bogus transaction without any documentary evidence to the contrary. Such an allegation of the Assessing Officer infact proves that the loan were internally sourced and was genuine and therefore, there was requirement of repayment of loan. The repayment of loan actually indicates that the loan was genuine. That such loans were subsequently given to other entitles of the assessee group does not establish the invocation of section 68. 42. The Assessing Officer has noted that Mr. Nakul Agarwal had received funds from Novel Construction one of the group firms and the same were transferred to the assessee and the addition was made treating it as bogus transaction without bringing on record any material. Infact such an allegation of the Assessing Officer establishes the source of source of the loan taken by the assessee. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that there was some cash deposit in the account and the same was transferred by the lender to the assessee. Further, the assessee has also submitted the assessment order of Novel Construction for A.Y 2012-13 wherein the returned income has been accepted by the Assessing Officer and no adverse finding as to the nature of the entity is there. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 29 43. It is seen that the statement under oath of Shri Nakul Aggarwal was recorded on 17.01.2017. In his statement he has not stated that there was any accommodation entry given by him. Infact he confirmed the transaction and also confirmed the payment of interest by the assessee. He confirmed the address of the company in his statement under oath which was not found to be untrue by the Assessing Officer/investigating officer. 44. In the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta, the Assessing Officer has alleged that the source of fund are not substantiated by the assessee. The assessee has submitted that the immediate credit before advance the loan was received in the bank account of the lender from sale proceeds of land located in Vasant Kunj. During the remand proceedings, the assessee provided the Assessing Officer with the sale deed of land from which the creditor received money and lent to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has refused to accept the claim of the assessee without enquiring further into information. As the assessee was able to furnish even the source of fund, in that case the addition was not justified in the absence of evidence of any cash deposit in the account. Further, the Assessing Officer could have called for complete statement and pointed out any cash deposit in the account of the lender. However, that is not the case of the Assessing Officer. 45. In case of Chander Kishore Dhingra, the Assessing Officer has alleged that the complete bank statement was not provided but the assessee has provided the source of source of the loan transaction and there was no finding to the contrary was provide by the Assessing Officer. Further the complete bank statement for the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 30 relevant period was provided from the ITR of the lender filed by the assessee, it is seen that the lender is having gross total income of Rs.17,02,544/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded with the addition on the premise of non-availability of complete bank statement. In any way, the AO was empowered to call for the statement from the bank of the lender which was not done during the course of assessment proceedings. 46. The Assessing Officer has alleged that the loans transaction with members of Khanna family were having uniform pattern of debit and credit and every debit is immediately followed by credit to the appellant. The funds returned by the assessee to one family member were transferred to another family member who in turn paid the same as fresh loan to the assessee. Since, the assessee has provided the source of source of all the transactions and there was no observation by the Assessing Officer in respect the nature of funds. Merely because there were transactions having same pattern or immediate transfer of funds after receipt, it cannot be concluded that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction was not proved. Moreover, the Assessing Officer could not establish that there was some cash deposit in any of the account. Infact the allegation of the Assessing Officer establishes the genuineness of source of source also.” …………………….. 50. It is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, Assessing Officer has doubted the financial capacity of the creditors in some cases, but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be substance in contention because the addition is made u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 31 brought anything on record to establish that the sources of creditors is non genuine. Merely because creditors have shown meagre income or no sufficient sources as presumed by Assessing Officer, loan taken by assessee from them cannot be held to be accommodative. It is well-settled position of law that no matter how strong suspicion is, it cannot take place of the evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence showing that in fact, assessee has given cash in lieu of unsecured loan taken, merely on the basis of suspicion, no addition can be made for which reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of DaulatramRawatmull, (1964) 53 ITR 574. 51. The Assessing Officer has also alleged that the partner of the firm of the assessee was required to appear before him but he refused to appear by stating that there is no proceedings pending in respect of him. Thus, Assessing Officer contended that the assessee had made deliberate attempt to not cooperate in the proceedings. The mere non appearance of the partner would not entitle the Assessing Officer to conclude that all the credits are not explained u/s 68 when all the details relating to the transactions were provided by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer could have enforced attendance of such person by powers vested in him by the law. 52. The assessee has furnished the assessment order of M/s Nitin Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y 2013-14. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the company has not been treated as a shell company and regular assessment disallowing an estimated addition of Rs.1 Lakhs was made in the assessment order. If in the assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 32 order of M/s Nitin Hire Purchase, it is not held that it was shell company or that it was engaged in the business of giving accommodation entries, it is unjustified that the same entity is treated as accommodation entry providers in the case of the assessee. 53. Further, the assessment order for A.Y 2012-13 of Twenty First Century India Ltd. was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the company has not been treated as a shell company and returned income has been accepted in the assessment order. If in the assessment order of M/s Twenty First Century India Ltd, it is not held that it was shell company or that it was engaged in the business of giving accommodation entries, it is unjustified that the same entity is treated as accommodation entry providers in the case of the assessee. 54. The condition precedent for invoking the provision the section 68 is that the explanation of the assessee is not found satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. However, on perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not taken pains to rebut the explanation offered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also failed to bring evidences contrary to the explanation of the assessee which is a fundamental requirement for invoking the provisions of section 68. On this ground also the addition made invoking the provisions of section 68 do not survive. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 33 55. it is seen that most of the loans carried interest also on which TDS was duly deducted. It is further seen that the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of deduction on account of payment of interest to the parties. By allowing the claim of interest to the lenders, the Assessing Officer has actually accepted the identity to be genuine and the transaction to be genuine transaction. The basic presumption in section 68 is that it is the assessee on unaccounted money which is coming back to him by way of loan being directly credited to the balance sheet bye passing the P & L account. As the interest payment to the parties mentioned above has not been disallowed, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 in the instant case. 56. It is also a matter of record that the loans were repaid in subsequent years and the same was not doubted by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Rajkot-1 vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat) had held that:- \"Having heard Shri Pranav Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue and on perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) confirmed by the ITAT, it appears that CIT(A) was satisfied with respect to the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of Shri Ishwar Adwani and, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. It is required to be noted that as such an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- vide cheque no. 102110 and an amount of Rs.60 lakh vide cheque no. 102111 was given to the assessee and out of the total loan of Rs. 1.60 crore, Rs. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 34 15 lakh vide cheque no. 196107 was repaid and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- remained outstanding to be paid to Shri Ishwar Adwani. It has also come on record that the said loan amount s been repaid by the assessee to Shri Ishwar Adwani in the immediate next financial year and the Department has accepted the repayment of loan without prebing into it. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the ITAT has held that the matter is not required to be remanded as no other view would be possible, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.\" 57. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders 2001(3) TMI 9. In various other decisions, the Hon'ble Courts have deleted the addition u/s 68 if it is found that the loan was subsequently repaid and the department has not objected to the same. 58. If the case of the assessee is analysed in terms of the discussion of fact in foregoing paragraphs and the various case laws on the issues, it is seen that the evidences brought on record by the assessee has strength of evidence. Further, such evidence goes on to disprove the claim of the Assessing Officer regarding the applicability of provisions of cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Based on the evidences furnished during the course of assessment, remand and appellate proceedings, the identity of the creditor, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 188/Del/2025 M/s. Novel Infratech Page | 35 creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transactions does not get disproved. Hence, it is held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs.7,86,00,000/- is deleted. Accordingly, Grounds 1 to 3 are allowed.” 11. None of the aforesaid factual findings could be controverted by the revenue by contrary evidences. We find that the ld CIT(A) had elaborately given an independent finding qua each lender. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 12. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/08/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "