PURNIMA NANDU NAVANI ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6601/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Purnima Nandu Navani against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the reassessment made by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08. The primary contention was regarding the validity of the reassessment and the additions made under Section 68, which were alleged to be unexplained credits in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the additions were not justified as the entity involved, M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd., had been previously accepted as a genuine entity in other assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 843884 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITO vs. Harsh Dalmia, M/s. Mahan Industries, M/s. Artlink Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Udaipur Properties & Finance Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARENDRA VERMA; NOT FILING APPEAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HENEEL SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove; Reopening of assessment; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 147; 143(3); 68; 131; 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6601/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Purnima Nandu Navani 804, Monarch Orchid Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 410210 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2)(1), 413, 4th Floor, Tower 6, Vashi Railway Station Commerical Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ADPPN9937M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Heneel Shah Revenue by Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 18.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2007-08. The following grounds are reproduced below: “That the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A)-2, Gurugram erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the assessment order dated 13-03-2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 2. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)2, Gurgram erred in dismissing the grounds raised by the Appellant Assessee challenging the validity of the reassessment in absence of the basic ingredients required for reopening the assessment under the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)2, Gurgram erred in dismissing the Appal of the Assessee on legal ground against jurtisdfiction of reopening the assessment when there was nothing recorded in the impugned assessment order that there was reasons to believe of escapement of income. 4. That the information of reassessment proceedings was without jurisdiction in as much as the same was based on assumption of incorrect facts that the assessee availed accommodation entries. 5. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)2, Gurgram erred in dismissing the legal ground when the reopening of the assessment based on assumption of incorrect facts, was held to be without jurisdiction by various courts. 6. That the reopening of the assessment was without valid sanction as the reason communicated to the assessee did not contain anything about the approval granted by the higher authority. Therefore, it is presumed that no saction was obtained. Without prejudice, if at all any sanction was obtained, copy of the sanction was not communicated to the assessee. 7. That the assessee did not receive the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as alleged by the A.O. in the assessment order. The assessee received only Rs.55,000/- which is reflected in the assessee's bank account. 8. That the Ld. A.O. erred in alleging that the assessee did not file the Income Tax return whereas the assessee physically filed the return u/s 139 of the Act on 6th June 2009 vide acknowledgement No.556. 9. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)2, Gurgram erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,55,000 made by the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act alleging as unexplained credit. 10. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)2, Gurgram is against law and facts of the case. The appellant crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal.” 2. Ground Nos. 7 to 9 raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions of Rs. 1,55,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through this consolidated order. 3. We have heard the counsels for both parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the additions were made by the AO against the assessee only on the ground that the assessee was found to be the beneficiary of accommodation entries. We find that, as per the facts, information was received from ITO–22(2)(2), Mumbai, wherein the assessee’s sister, Mrs. Swati Navani, had given a statement under Section 131 of the Act to the effect that her sister, i.e., the assessee Mrs. Purnima Navani, had received Rs. 1,55,000/- from M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. for meeting her study expenses. The said amount was transferred directly by M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to the school on behalf of the assessee and was shown as a loan advanced to Swati Navani in Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 the books of M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The ledger account of Mrs. Swati Navani in the books of M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. also shows that cheques of Rs. 1,55,000/- were issued in the name of Mrs. Purnima Navani, i.e., the assessee. Thus, it was considered that the assessee was the beneficiary of the said accommodation entries. 4. After having meticulously gone through the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, we find that the AO himself admitted that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been shown in the books of M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as a loan to Swati Navani and not to the present assessee. Apart from that, there is no other document which shows that the assessee had ever received a loan directly from M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The other amount of Rs. 55,000/- was paid by cheque to the school and not to the assessee. 5. Although there is no direct or primary evidence against the assessee, the additions were still made on the ground that M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is a bogus company and indulged in providing accommodation entries. In this regard, we find that the AO had not placed on record a single document in order to demonstrate that M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was a bogus company. Even otherwise, the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT have already considered the loans granted by M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to various other assessees and, after detailed Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 consideration, the additions were deleted in respect of other assessees. 6. We also noticed that the issue raised before us is squarely covered by a series of decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT, particularly in the cases of  ITO vs. Harsh Dalmia, in ITA No. 7459/Mum/2016, wherein it was held that : 4. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee-herein was a beneficiary of accommodation loan entries provided by M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Limited (BMPL). Accordingly he reopened the impugned assessment and added a sum of 41 lakhs, being loan taken from BMPL, as unexplained cash credit. The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has discharged the initial burden placed upon him by producing all the materials. Further, transaction carried out by BMPL is not found to be fake or bogus by the learned CIT(A) in the order passed by him in A.Y. 2011-12 in the hands of BMPL. The learned CIT(A) further noticed that the Revenue has accepted the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of BMPL. He further noticed that identical addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of M/s. Watermarks Systems (India) Pvt. Limited for A.Y. 2008- 09 was deleted by him. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition of 41 lakhs. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I noticed that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition with the following observations:- 5.2.1 This relates to addition of Rs. 41,00,000/-u/s. 68, representing loan received from BMPL. The assessing officer dealt with this issue at para 4 of his order. He has observed that during the relevant previous year, the appellant has shown unsecured loans from BMPL at Rs. 56,65,500/ He Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 has reproduced reply of the appellant dated 07/03/2015 under para 4.4 of his order. In para 4.8 the assessing officer has observed that from the ledger account of the appellant in the books of BMPL, debit entries of the impugned amounts are recorded 5.2.2 In at para 4.10 and 4.11, the assessing officer has observed, \"As can be seen from the background of the entities involved in the transaction, the findings of the other investigating agency regarding involvement of the group in providing accommodation entries, the findings of the assessment in assessee's own case, for AY 2007-08, it follows that the transaction of the assessee during the year under discussion, is also a case of providing accommodation entry to the assessee, by the said M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. i.e. providing of credit entry to the assessee which is nothing else but at moderation entry.\" He further referred to intimation from DCIT Central Circle XXVIII, Kolkata and report of CBI. Citing these information, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 58.20 lakhs u/s 68. 5.2.3 It is pertinent to note that the appellant had furnished PAN details, confirmation, balance sheet, copies of Income Tax returns and bank statements of BMPL to the assessing officer during the course of reassessment. Further, subsequently CIT(A)-20, Kolkata has decided appeal of BMPL for AY 2010-11 were he has categorically stated that there is no material on record to conclude that the company was involved in providing accommodation entry. Although, this finding was for assessment year 2010-11, it is also relevant for the instant appeal. Nowhere in his order has the assessing officer brought any finding of fact to establish that the impugned amounts were unexplained. There is no dispute as to the identity of BMPI, the amounts have been transferred and recorded in audited books of account, BMPL is assessed to Income Tax and it is acceptable business practice for promoters of companies to give to or take loans from group companies. The assessing officer has not brought anything on record to challenge the genuineness of the transactions. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 5.2.4 In Appeal No.CIT(A)-8/1T-407/14-15, filed by M/s Watermarks Systems (India) Put Ltd for AY 2008-09, another group concern that had taken loans from BMPL. I had made the following observations:- 7.3.4 A bare reading of section 68 suggests that if any sum is found credited in the books of account of the assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books or the explanation offered by the assessee, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, is not satisfactory, it is only then the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The expression the Assessee offers no explanation' means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. Accordingly, in order to discharge this burden, assessee is required to prove the (a) Identity of Shareholder (b) Genuineness of transaction and (c) Credit worthiness of creditors. 7.3.5 Various courts have discussed the aspects of burden of proof that lies on assessee. Inference can be drawn about the nature of evidence offered, the circumstances explaining the credit and the actions of an assessee that would constitute reasonable discharge of that burden of proof. Some of those cases are mentioned hereunder. Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278/161 Τaxman 169 held that the expression assessee offers no explanation means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. It further held that the opinion of the AO for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material & other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the AD is required to be formed objectively with reference to Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion. CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (87 ITR 349) (SC): It was held that assessee was not required to prove the source of the source. 190 ITR 396 (Born): It was held that the assessee having discharged the initial burden, by giving complete name and address of the bankers and confirmation letters, it was for the Income-tax Officer to show that the explanation rendered by the assessee was not true. iv. CIT u. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (App/n. No. 11993 of 2007, dated 11-1-2008): If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. CIT v. First Point Finance Ltd. [2006] 2861TR 477 (Raj.). CIT v. Bhawani Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. 49 DTR 212- Where it is found that the investors are genuinely existing persons, they have filed confirmations in respect of investments made by them and their statements are also recorded, amount of share application money cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit and no addition can be made under section 68. vi. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2006) 283 1TR 377/155 Taxman 289 (Raj.), Uma Polymers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2006) 101 TTS 124 (Jodh.)(TM): Where the share application money is received by the assessee company through banking channel, the assessee has only to prove the existence of person in whose name share application money is Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 received. Once the existence of investor is proved, it is no further burden of assessee to prove whether the person itself has invested the said money or some other person has made investment in name of that person. The burden then shifts on the Revenue to establish that such an investment has come from assessee-company itself vii. CIT. Gangour Investment Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 1 (Delhi), C/Tv. Victor Electrodes Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 271 (Delhi), Dy. C/Tu. Dolphine Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2011] 129 1TD 163/10 taxmann.com 75 (Jab.)(TM), Bharti Syntex Ltd. u. Dy. C/T 52 OTR 73 (Jp.). Assessee-company filed letters of the share applicant companies wrote to the ACIT confirming that they had applied for shares in the assessee-company, giving details of draft, copies of resolutions passed by BOD of applicant-companies besides their bank statement/copies of acknowledgement of returns, certificates of incorporations and balance sheets of the applicant-companies wherein investment made in the assessee-company was shown, PAN, ROC certificate, it had discharged the onus which lay upon it under section 68 by establishing the identity and creditworthiness of each shareholder and, therefore, no addition could be made under section 68. viii. CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 II'R 78 125 Taxman 80F (SC): In this case assessee gave the names and addresses of the creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the creditors were income-tax assessees. The revenue apart from issuing notices under section 131 did not pursue the matter further. It did not examine the source of income of the alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. Therefore, it was held that in these circumstances, assessee could not do any further and it had discharged the burden laid on it. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 ix. Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 1/2003] 127 Тактап 523 (Gui.): If the identity of the creditors is proved and the amounts are received by account-payee cheques, the initial burden of proving credit is discharged and the source of credits need not be proved. ix. CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd. 64 DTR 46: In this decision given by the Delhi High Court, it was held that by bringing on record every possible information regarding the depositors included in the application form which included particulars of applicant/depositor, telephone No., particulars of demand draft/cheque through which the deposit was made, tax status of applicant and other deposit with the assessee, if any, assessee had discharged the initial onus laid on it under section 68 and addition could not be made merely for the reason that no confirmation letters were filed in respect of some of the depositors. CIT v. Orissa Corpri. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 125 Taxman 80F (SC) in this case assessee gave the names and addresses of the creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the creditors were income-tax assessees. The revenue apart from issuing notices under section 131 did not pursue the matter further. It did not examine the source of income of the alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. Therefore, it was held that in these circumstances, assessee could not do any further and it had discharged the burden laid on it. xi In Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Born.), one of the questions referred to the Bombay High Court was whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that a sum standing in the books of the assessee to the credit of a third party belonged to the assessee. The Bombay High Court discussed the nature and significance of cash credits in such cases and observed as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 \"When cash credits appear in the accounts of an assessee, whether in his own name or in the name of third parties, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to satisfy himself as to the true nature and source of the amounts entered therein, and if after investigation or inquiry he is satisfied that there is no satisfactory explanation as to the said entries, he would be entitled to regard them as representing the undisclosed income of the assessee. When these credit entries stand in the name of the assessee himself, the burden is undoubtedly on him to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these entries and to show that they do not constitute a part of his business income liable to tax. When, however, entries stand, not in the assessee's own name, but in the name of third parties, there has been some divergence of opinion expressed as to the question of the burden of proof The Income-tax Officer's rejection not of the explanation of the assessee, but of the explanation regarding the source of income of the depositors, cannot by itself lead to any inference regarding the non- genuine or fictitious character of the entries in the assessee's books of account.\" xii. The assessee having discharged the initial burden, by giving complete name and address of the bankers and confirmation letters, it was for the Income-tax Officer to show that the explanation rendered by the assessee was not true 190 ITR 396 (Born). 7.3.6 The facts of the instant case have to be viewed in accordance with the ratio of the judgements cited above. As already mentioned, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the identity of the creditors, BMPL. He has also stated in the remand report that BMPL had received huge inflow of funds, which is supported by its bank statements. The Assessing Officer has also stated that these funds were received by BMPL through cheques, RTGS etc. and the appellant company was given loan out of these funds. Most importantly, the Assessing Officer himself observed that the transactions though Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 supported by proper evidence, \"appears to be part of said bogus billing activity.\" 7.3.7 It is noted that Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata, in his order for assessment year 2010-11 in the case of Mis Basant Marketing Private Limited has held BMPL as not fake or bogus. This fact is also not disputed by the Assessing Officer in his remand report. 7.3.8 Thus, it is seen that the identity of BMPL is established beyond doubt. It is also not disputed that BMPL had sufficient funds in its own books of accounts and reflected in bank statements, which establishes its credituorthiness. The appellant is not required to establish source of source as held in Jaikishan Dadlani us ITO 4 SOT 138 (MUM). The appellant had offered explanation to the Assessing Officer but had not been able to submit all documentary evidences because the same were in custody of CBL As already quoted above, in the appeal in the case of BMPL for AY 2010-11, the Id. CIT(A) 20, Kolkata had categorically observed that there is no material on record to back the finding that BMPL was involved in providing accommodation entry. The finding of fact of CIT(A) in that case has been accepted by the Department by not going in appeal against it. Thus, the genuineness of the transaction itself has been accepted by the Department. 7.3.9 In view of the ratio of decisions cited above, facts and circumstances of the case as discussed and after giving due consideration to the observations of the Assessing Officer in his remand report, I do not find merit in the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of 4,35,69,6001-u/s. 68 of the Act and the same is, therefore, deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed. 5.2.5 In the instant case, loan from the same group company BMPL is under question, therefore, my decision in respect of BMPL cited above is also valid in the instant appeal. The appellant had discharged onus Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 and the assessing officer has not brought anything on record to negate identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of transaction with BMPL but has instead made the addition on certain conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 41,00,000/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.\" 7. I noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order by duly considering the facts surrounding the issue and also by applying the principles laid down in various decisions relied upon by him. I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that the transactions carried on by M/s BMPI. were found to be genuine in its hand. In the instant case, the AO has made the impugned addition only on the reasoning that M/s BMPL was giving only accommodation loan entries. Since the transactions carried on by M/s BMPL were found to be genuine, the reasoning given by the AO fails. Accordingly I am of the view that the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition on proper reasoning and hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by him on this issue. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.  M/s. Mahan Industries, in ITA No. 146/Mum/2016, wherein it was held that : 5. We heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessing officer has reopened the assessment and made the impugned addition in consequence to the search conducted in the hands of Shri Arun Dalmia and others. He submitted that M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd is assessed to income tax and the assessments have been completed u/s 143(3) after the search proceedings for AY 2009-10, wherein all the transactions of M/s Basant Marketing have been accepted as genuine business transactions. However, it was declared as a fictitious entity in AY Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 2010-11 by the AO, which was challenged by M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd by filing appeal before ld CIT(A), Kolkatta. The Ld CIT(A), Kolkatta has passed the order on 04-02-2015 for AY 2010-11, wherein he has held that M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd is not a bogus entity and further there is no material on record to support the finding given by AO. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A), Kolkatta has held the business carried on by M/s Basant Marketing cannot considered to be bogus in nature. 6. The Ld A.R further submitted that the Ld CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO and the AO has reported that though the Ld CIT(A), Kolkatta has held it to be a genuine company, yet the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of transactions. The Ld A.R submitted that the order passed by Ld CIT(A), Kolkatta in the hands of M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd has since been accepted by the department by not filing appeal before ITAT. Не submitted that the letter dated 23-02-2016 in No.ITO, Wd- 8(1)/Kol/Basant Marketing/15-16 written by the ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkatta to the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax-3(3)(2), Mumbai clarifies this fact. The Ld A.R submitted that the whole premise of the AO in making the impugned addition is that the transactions of M/s Basant Marketing are bogus, while it has been accepted as genuine in its hands. 7. The Ld A.R further submitted that M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd is regular in filing income tax returns and is registered under Companies Act. Hence its identity is proved. He submitted that the transactions have been routed through banking channels and hence genuineness is proved. He submitted that the assessee has also furnished financial statements of M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd, which shows that it is carrying on trading transactions and was also holding inventories. It has also received dividends from companies. It has also obtained unsecured loans from various parties, which have been used to make investments, to hold inventories and to give loans and advances. He submitted that the Balance sheet, which has been audited, proves the sources of the funds/credit worthiness. Accordingly he submitted that the assessee has discharged the initial onus placed upon it Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly he submitted that this addition should be deleted. 8. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, strongly supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). He submitted that the surrounding circumstances in the instant case prove that the transactions are not genuine. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Bikram Singh that the mere facts that the identity of the lenders is established and the payments have been made through banking channels by themselves do not mean that the transactions are genuine. It further held that if the lenders do not have financial strength to lend such huge sums and if there is no explanation as to their relationship with the assessee, no collateral security and no agreement, the transactions have to be treated as bogus unexplained credits. 9. In the instant case, we notice that the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of search conducted by CBI in the hands of Arun Dalmia, wherein it was stated that the transactions of M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd are not genuine. However, it is noticed that, after the search action, the assessments of M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd have been completed for AY 2009-10 accepting the transactions as genuine. Though the AO of M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd has taken a different view and held the transactions to be bogus in AY 2010-11, yet the said view of the AO has been set aside by Ld CIT(A), Kolkatta in the appellate proceedings by observing that the view so taken by the AO is not supported by evidences. It is pertinent to note that the order so passed by Ld CIT(A) has been accepted by the revenue and thus has attained finality. Hence the very basis, on which the impugned addition has been made, has failed. 10. The AO has also observed that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act. From the arguments of the Ld A.R, we notice that the assessee has discharged the onus by proving the identity of the creditor, genuineness of transactions and credit worthiness of the creditor. The financial statements of M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 show that it was having sufficient sources to lend money to the assessee. The financial statements also show that M/s Basant Marketing P Ltd was carrying on certain trading activities and it has invested funds in Investments, inventories and in giving loans and advances. On the contrary, we notice that the AO did not disprove the contentions and submissions of the assessee, i.e., the AO has failed to discharge the burden of proof shifted to his shoulder. When the assessee is proving the transactions and further when the transactions have been accepted as genuine in the hands of lender, in our view, the theory of human probabilities could not be applied here. 11. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bikram Singh (supra). However, in the above said case, the credit worthiness of the creditors was not established by the assessee, which makes this case distinguishable. 12. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.100 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly We set aside the order of the Ld CIT(A) passed on this issue and direct the AO to delete the same. 13. The assessee has also challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. We do not find it necessary to adjudicate the same as we have deleted the addition on merits. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed.  M/s. Artlink Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1121/Kol/2016  M/s. Udaipur Properties & Finance Ltd. in ITA No. 6449/Mum/2017. 7. In totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, and taking into consideration the decisions of the Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 Coordinate Benches of the ITAT, respectfully following the doctrine of binding precedent and maintaining judicial consistency, particularly when identical additions made on similar facts have been deleted by the Coordinate Benches, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions and pass the order accordingly. 8. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed. 9. Other grounds raised by the assessee are academic in nature and therefore, does not require any adjudication. 10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKER) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 16/03/2026 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No.6601/Mum/2025 उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "