DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-32(1), MUMBAI V. M/S DISHA CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

ITA 2207/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6228 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 37; 133(6); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dy. CIT, Circle 32(1), Room No. 425, 4 th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Vs. M/s Disha Construction, 201, Square One, Gulmohar Road No. 1, Ville Parle (W), Mumbai-400049. PAN No. AADFD 9171 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashok Bansal, Mr. Ajay Daga Revenue by : Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 19/10/2023 Date of pronouncement : 25/10/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders both dated 24.04.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The issue in dispute involved in both these appeals being identical, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. We first take up the appeal for AY 2010 The grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2010 reproduced as under: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" 2. "Whether on Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi o obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human conduct and preponderance of probability?" 3. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of upholding the addition made by the Assessing O by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of building and development of real estate. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices under the Income were issued and complied with. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.03.2013, t addition of Rs.6,85,50,000/ invoking section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,78,86,545/ ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 We first take up the appeal for AY 2010-11 for adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2010 reproduced as under: hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi o obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human conduct and preponderance of probability?" 3. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, . CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of building and development of real estate. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.4,90,10,902/ of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment order passed u/s 43(3) of the Act on 20.03.2013, the Assessing Officer made of Rs.6,85,50,000/- in respect of unsecured loans received invoking section 68 of the Act and disallowance of amounting to Rs.1,78,86,545/- invoking section 37 of the Act. M/s Disha Construction 2 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 11 for adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 are hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of 3. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, . CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018) fficer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of building and development of real estate. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on Rs.4,90,10,902/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment order passed u/s he Assessing Officer made in respect of unsecured loans received disallowance of interest invoking section 37 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) delete following the finding of the Income short ‘the Tribunal’) in the case of the assessee Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced above. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing page 1 to 375. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee received fresh loans were received in the assessment year 2008 also paid interest to nine parties from whom the loans were received in the year under consideration as well as in the earlier of such parties reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 5.4 of the assessment order is extracted as under: S. No. Name of loan creditor 1. Chintamani Exporte 2. Yogi Diam 3. Vaishali Gems 4. B. Ashok Km & Co. 5. Akruti Stone 6. Kushal Exports 7. Maniprabha Exports 8. Priya Gems 9. Manav Trading(l) Pvt. Ltd. 10. P Jitendra & Co. 11. Prachi Gems 12. PR Diamonds ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in the case of the assessee for AY 2008 Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced above. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing page 1 to 375. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee received fresh loans from the six parties from whom loans were received in the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee also paid interest to nine parties from whom the loans were received in the year under consideration as well as in the earlier es reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 5.4 of the assessment order is extracted as under: Name of loan creditor Fresh Loan received Interest debited Chintamani Exporte 1,90,00,000 8,87,169 17,50,000 Vaishali Gems 1,88,00,000 B. Ashok Km & Co. 0 Akruti Stone 0 Kushal Exports 1,25,00,000 Maniprabha Exports 65,00,000 1,00,00,000 Manav Trading(l) Pvt. Ltd. 0 P Jitendra & Co. 0 Prachi Gems 0 PR Diamonds 0 M/s Disha Construction 3 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 d the addition / disallowance tax Appellate Tribunal in (in for AY 2008-09. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, loans from the six parties from whom 09. The assessee also paid interest to nine parties from whom the loans were received in the year under consideration as well as in the earlier years. A list es reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 5.4 of Interest debited 8,87,169 26,25,738 40,45,554 0 25,01,836 29,97,970 39,91,353 0 0 73,955 67,395 13. Sanskar Exports Total 4.1 The Assessing Officer observed that fresh loans in the year under consideration from whom in earlier years unexplained cash credit consideration, the Assessing Officer called for the information invoking section 133(6) of the Act for creditworthiness and genuineness of the duly complied and filed officer. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the loan creditors parties during the year under consideration were in para 24 of the asse 09. The Assessing Officer observed that major loan creditors closely linked to each other and trading in diamonds and precious stones. The loan creditors meager incomes and loans and substantial interest payment/receipts against loans are shown on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the form of loans. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 214 ITR 801 (SC) Rs.6,85,50,000/- received from relevant parties as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Further, the ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 Sanskar Exports 0 6,85,50,000 The Assessing Officer observed that fresh loans in the year under consideration from parties, the in earlier years i.e AY 2008-09 had been held unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer called for the information invoking section 133(6) of the Act for verifying identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction duly complied and filed the information called for by the Assessing . The Assessing Officer was of the view that the loan creditors parties during the year under consideration were same para 24 of the assessment order for the assessment year 2008 09. The Assessing Officer observed that major loan creditors closely linked to each other and were engaged in trading in diamonds and precious stones. The loan creditors meager incomes and had advanced disproportionately substantial loans and substantial interest payment/receipts against loans are shown on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) held the fresh unsecured loan of received from relevant parties as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Further, the M/s Disha Construction 4 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 695575 1,78,86,545 The Assessing Officer observed that fresh loans were received from parties, the loans received 09 had been held as . During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer called for the information verifying identity, transaction. Those parties the information called for by the Assessing . The Assessing Officer was of the view that the loan creditors same as discussed ssment order for the assessment year 2008- 09. The Assessing Officer observed that major loan creditors were were engaged in the business of trading in diamonds and precious stones. The loan creditors had advanced disproportionately substantial loans and substantial interest payment/receipts against loans are shown on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) held the fresh unsecured loan of received from relevant parties as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Further, the interest claimed by the assessee in respect of those unsecured loan parties amounting to Rs.1, further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as under: “[1.5.4] A perusal of the assessment order would show that the assessing officer has doubted about the credit worthiness only on the reasoning that and disproportionate to the loan amount given by them. The AO took reference of "para 22" of the assessment order for the A. Y. 2008 respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan credit well settled proposition that the initial burden of proof to prove the cash credits is placed upon the assessee, i.e., the assessee is required to discharge three main ingredients in respect of the cash creditors, viz., the identity of the cre worthiness of the creditor. the following:- i. Copy of the account of the appellant in the books of loan creditor. ii. Relevant bank statement of loan iii. Copy of acknowledgement for having filed return of income of the loan creditor. iv. Full set of audited accounts with tax audit report of loan creditor. After examining the evidences submitted by the assessee of the creditors, I came to the conclusion that the sources of funds given to the assessee stand explained through the financial statements. In the instant case, the identity of all the creditors stand established, since the assessee has furnished their supporting evidences and further t identified the owners of all the concerns. There is no dispute that the loan transactions have been routed through the banking channels and hence the genuineness of the loan transactions also stand established. The assessing officer did not Sheet of each of the creditor to find out the sources available with the each of the creditor in order to give loan to the assessee. I find that the AO merely doubted the genuineness of credits without bringing any substantial piece of evidences contrary to the claim of the appellant. Further, I find that the AO has wrongly presumed that appellant has not discharged its onus cast upon it in furnishing required evidences of credits appearing in its book ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 interest claimed by the assessee in respect of those unsecured loan parties amounting to Rs.1,78,86,545/- was also further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as [1.5.4] A perusal of the assessment order would show that the assessing officer has doubted about the credit worthiness only on the reasoning that the income declared by each of the creditors was lower and disproportionate to the loan amount given by them. The AO took reference of "para 22" of the assessment order for the A. Y. 2008 respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan credit well settled proposition that the initial burden of proof to prove the cash credits is placed upon the assessee, i.e., the assessee is required to discharge three main ingredients in respect of the cash creditors, viz., the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the creditor. In connection to this, the assessee furnished i. Copy of the account of the appellant in the books of loan creditor. ii. Relevant bank statement of loan creditor. i. Copy of acknowledgement for having filed return of income of the loan creditor. iv. Full set of audited accounts with tax audit report of loan creditor. After examining the evidences submitted by the assessee of the creditors, conclusion that the sources of funds given to the assessee stand explained through the financial statements. In the instant case, the identity of all the creditors stand established, since the assessee has furnished their supporting evidences and further the AO has also identified the owners of all the concerns. There is no dispute that the loan transactions have been routed through the banking channels and hence the genuineness of the loan transactions also stand established. The assessing officer did not examine the financial statements like Balance Sheet of each of the creditor to find out the sources available with the each of the creditor in order to give loan to the assessee. I find that the AO merely doubted the genuineness of credits without bringing any substantial piece of evidences contrary to the claim of the appellant. Further, I find that the AO has wrongly presumed that appellant has not discharged its onus cast upon it in furnishing required evidences of credits appearing in its books of account. M/s Disha Construction 5 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 interest claimed by the assessee in respect of those unsecured loan was also disallowed. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as [1.5.4] A perusal of the assessment order would show that the assessing officer has doubted about the credit worthiness only on the the income declared by each of the creditors was lower and disproportionate to the loan amount given by them. The AO took reference of "para 22" of the assessment order for the A. Y. 2008-09 in respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. It is a well settled proposition that the initial burden of proof to prove the cash credits is placed upon the assessee, i.e., the assessee is required to discharge three main ingredients in respect of the cash creditors, viz., the ditor, the genuineness of the transactions and credit In connection to this, the assessee furnished i. Copy of the account of the appellant in the books of loan i. Copy of acknowledgement for having filed return of income of iv. Full set of audited accounts with tax audit report of loan After examining the evidences submitted by the assessee of the creditors, conclusion that the sources of funds given to the assessee stand explained through the financial statements. In the instant case, the identity of all the creditors stand established, since the assessee has he AO has also identified the owners of all the concerns. There is no dispute that the loan transactions have been routed through the banking channels and hence the genuineness of the loan transactions also stand established. The examine the financial statements like Balance Sheet of each of the creditor to find out the sources available with the each of the creditor in order to give loan to the assessee. I find that the AO merely doubted the genuineness of credits without bringing on record any substantial piece of evidences contrary to the claim of the appellant. Further, I find that the AO has wrongly presumed that appellant has not discharged its onus cast upon it in furnishing required evidences of [1.5.5] In this instant, the addition made in the impugned order and based on the reasoning in "para 22" of the order passed for the A.Y. 2008-09. The addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2008 the order of the Ld CIT (A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT "D" BENCH, MUMBAI vide order dated 31 March, 2015 in I.T.A. No.4992/Mum/2012. [1.5.6] In view of the above discussion and considering the circumstances of the case which is similar to the order passed for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009 of Rs.6,85,50,000/ disallowance of interest. Assessee's appea 4.2 We find that the parties from whom loan received and added invoking section 68 of the Act i same parties , the loan received from whom was held as unexplained cash credit in AY 20 fact. The loan parties had creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the Assessing Officer simply 2008-09 and making similar obs observation specific to any party, those parties as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) following the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008 4992/Mum/2012 deleted the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “12. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee has established the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of all the loan creditors. The AO h conclusions in paragraph 22 of the assessment order. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessing officer has simply gone on extraneous considerations by making wild guesses unconnected with the application of sec. 68. Accordingly, the made u/s 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 In this instant, the addition made in the impugned order and based on the reasoning in "para 22" of the order passed for the A.Y. 09. The addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 was deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and further the order of the Ld CIT (A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT "D" BENCH, MUMBAI vide order dated 31 March, 2015 in I.T.A. No.4992/Mum/2012. In view of the above discussion and considering the circumstances of the case which is similar to the order passed for the 09 & 2009-10, I hereby delete the additions made to the tune of Rs.6,85,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act & Rs.1,78,86,545/- disallowance of interest. Assessee's appeal succeeds in Gr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.” the parties from whom loan received and added invoking section 68 of the Act in the year under consideration same parties , the loan received from whom was held as unexplained cash credit in AY 2008-09. There is no dispute on this fact. The loan parties had filed details in support of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the simply relying on the order for assessment year and making similar observation but without any observation specific to any party, held the fresh loan received from those parties as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) following the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008 deleted the addition. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: 12. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee has established the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of all the loan creditors. The AO had reached certain conclusions in paragraph 22 of the assessment order. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessing officer has simply gone on extraneous considerations by making wild guesses unconnected with the application of sec. 68. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the assessment of creditors made u/s 68 of the Act. M/s Disha Construction 6 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 In this instant, the addition made in the impugned order is similar and based on the reasoning in "para 22" of the order passed for the A.Y. 09. The addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed 10 was deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and further the order of the Ld CIT (A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT "D" BENCH, MUMBAI vide order dated 31 March, 2015 in I.T.A. In view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is similar to the order passed for the 10, I hereby delete the additions made to the tune on account of the parties from whom loan received and added n the year under consideration are same parties , the loan received from whom was held as 09. There is no dispute on this in support of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the assessment year ervation but without any held the fresh loan received from those parties as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) following the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No. . The relevant finding of the 12. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee has established the genuineness of the transactions and the credit ad reached certain conclusions in paragraph 22 of the assessment order. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessing officer has simply gone on extraneous considerations by making wild guesses unconnected with the application Ld CIT(A) deleted the assessment of creditors 13. Before us, even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition, yet he could not controvert any of the findings given by the Ld CIT(A). As observed by us earlier, we notice that the assessee has discharged the initi u/s 68 of the Act by proving the credit worthiness of all the creditors. As pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the quantum of income declared in the income tax returns is not the sole factor that determine the credit worthiness. On examination of the Balance sheet filed by the creditors, the Ld CIT(A) has given a definite finding that all the creditors were having enough sources, either received through realisation of sundry debtors or through loans, for giving advance to the assess controvert the above said findings given by Ld CIT(A). We notice that he assessing officer, as observed by the first appellate authority, has proceeded to assess the creditors u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures without rebutting any of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) in AY 2008 4.3 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of the unexplained cash credit binding precedent in the case of the assessee itself and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 5. The ground raised in assessment year 2011 as under: "5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the l.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human c preponderance of probability?" "7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 Before us, even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition, yet he could not controvert any of the findings given by the Ld CIT(A). As observed by us earlier, we notice that the assessee has discharged the initial burden of proof placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act by proving the credit worthiness of all the creditors. As pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the quantum of income declared in the income tax returns is not the sole factor that determine the credit worthiness. On examination of the Balance sheet filed by the creditors, the Ld CIT(A) has given a definite finding that all the creditors were having enough sources, either received through realisation of sundry debtors or through loans, for giving advance to the assessee. Before us, the Ld D.R could not controvert the above said findings given by Ld CIT(A). We notice that he assessing officer, as observed by the first appellate authority, has proceeded to assess the creditors u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and s without rebutting any of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) in AY 2008-09.” We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of the unexplained cash credit and interest disallowance following the binding precedent in the case of the assessee itself and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds e Revenue are accordingly dismissed. The ground raised in assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human c preponderance of probability?" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the M/s Disha Construction 7 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 Before us, even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition, yet he could not controvert any of the findings given by the Ld CIT(A). As observed by us earlier, we notice that al burden of proof placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act by proving the credit worthiness of all the creditors. As pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the quantum of income declared in the income tax returns is not the sole factor that determine the credit worthiness. On examination of the Balance sheet filed by the creditors, the Ld CIT(A) has given a definite finding that all the creditors were having enough sources, either received through realisation of sundry debtors or through loans, for ee. Before us, the Ld D.R could not controvert the above said findings given by Ld CIT(A). We notice that he assessing officer, as observed by the first appellate authority, has proceeded to assess the creditors u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and s without rebutting any of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of the and interest disallowance following the binding precedent in the case of the assessee itself and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds 12 are reproduced Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human conduct and Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" 5.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the year under consideration, the loan has been received from following parties: Sr. No. Name of Loan creditors 1. CHINTAMANI EXPORTS 2. KUSHAL EXPORT 3. MANIPRABH EXPORTS 4. PRIYA GEMS 5. VAISHALI GEMS 6. YOGI DIAM 7. PRACHI GEMS 8. P. R. DIAMONDS 9. SANSKAR EXPORTS 5.2 The Assessing Officer has made addition disallowed the interest payment in respect of those loans. The finding of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration is identically worded to assessment year 2010 the amount. The Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition following the finding of the Tribunal in assessment year 2008 of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer being similar to assessment year 2010 assessment year 2010 consideration are also ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Vs. NRA I Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018) upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the year under consideration, the loan has been received from following Name of Loan creditors Fresh loan received (Rs.) CHINTAMANI EXPORTS 75,00,000 KUSHAL EXPORT 89,00,000 MANIPRABH EXPORTS 1,13,00,000 PRIYA GEMS 40,00,000 VAISHALI GEMS 2,50,00,000 YOGI DIAM 1,78,00,000 PRACHI GEMS R. DIAMONDS SANSKAR EXPORTS 7,45,00,000 The Assessing Officer has made addition u/s 68 of the Act and the interest payment in respect of those loans. The finding of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration is identically worded to assessment year 2010-11 except the change of the amount. The Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition following he finding of the Tribunal in assessment year 2008- of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer being similar to assessment year 2010-11 ,therefore, following our find assessment year 2010-11, the grounds of appeal for the year under also dismissed. M/s Disha Construction 8 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 1 Vs. NRA Iron & 2018) upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the year under consideration, the loan has been received from following Fresh loan received Interest Debited (Rs.) 75,00,000 2074807 89,00,000 1274327 1,13,00,000 4292161 40,00,000 1981295 2,50,00,000 1445398 1,78,00,000 824201 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,45,00,000 11892189 u/s 68 of the Act and the interest payment in respect of those loans. The finding of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration is 11 except the change of the amount. The Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition following -09. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer being similar to therefore, following our finding in he grounds of appeal for the year under 6. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 and 1011-12 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/10/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 12 are dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 25/10/2023. Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Disha Construction 9 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year /10/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai