PUSHPA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 24/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Pushpa Construction Company appealing against an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 7,24,00,000 to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the unsecured loan received from M/s. Blooming Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. was non-genuine. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, including the identity and creditworthiness of the lender, the genuineness of the transaction, and the repayment of the loan. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide any evidence to counter the documents submitted by the assessee and did not grant an opportunity for cross-examination, which was deemed a violation of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847009 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Rajuram Savaji Purohit vs. ITO, Prathmesh Graphics and Digital vs. ITO, Gaurav Triyugi Singh V. Income Tax officer, CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd, CIT v. Rohini Builders, H.R.Mehta vs. ACIT, PCIT vs Ambe Tradecorp P.Ltd, CIT vs Ashwani Gupta
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 68; 131; 133(6); 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 24/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Pushpa Construction Company 43/2143/A, Shanti Sadan CHS LTD, Bandra (East), S.O. Mumbai - 400051 Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1) Room No. 612, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAEFP4315P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 26.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.7,24,00,000/-, on account unsecured loan u/s. 68 of Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 the Income Tax Act. The appellant company prays that the said addition may please be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add and alter the grounds of appeal. ” 2. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the Revenue Authorities and also relied upon the submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) and also on the decisions in the case of Rajuram Savaji Purohit vs. ITO in ITA No. 3864/Mum/2024 and Prathmesh Graphics and Digital vs. ITO in ITA No. 1461/Mum/2025. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. 4. 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 assessee had received an unsecured loan of Rs. 7,24,00,000/- from M/s. Blooming Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 5. As per the information received by the AO, the assessee had received unsecured loan of Rs. 7,24,00,000/- from M/s. Blooming Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. According to the AO, such transactions were non-genuine. Therefore, additions under Section 68 of the Act were made in the case of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 6. From the records, we find that the assessee, in order to substantiate that the unsecured loan received was genuine, had placed the following documentary evidences on record: a) Name, address and PAN of the lender along with jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. b) Copy of Ledger Account and Loan Confirmation. c) Copy of Bank Statement highlighting the transactions relating to the loan taken. d) Copy of ITR Acknowledgment and ITR Form. e) Copy of Tax Audit Report, Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account along with relevant schedules. f) Copy of Ledger Account showing interest paid along with Form No. 16A evidencing deduction of TDS. 7. Apart from the above, the assessee had also submitted: a) Copy of Loan Confirmation. b) Copy of Bank Statement highlighting the loan amount advanced. c) Copy of ITR Acknowledgment. 8. After evaluating the documents placed on record, we find that the assessee had availed the loan from a duly incorporated company registered with the Registrar of Companies and regularly filing its return of income. Since the onus was on the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee placed on record all necessary documentary evidence to prove these three ingredients. 9. The assessee furnished sufficient documentary evidence, including copies of PAN, income tax return acknowledgements, and details of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of M/s. Blooming Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., which clearly establish the existence and identity of the lender company. 10. As regards creditworthiness, the assessee placed on record the income tax returns, financial statements, and bank statements wherein the loan transactions were duly reflected. From the bank statements of M/s. Blooming Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., it can be clearly observed that the said company had sufficient funds and adequate banking balance to advance the unsecured loan. Accordingly, the financial credibility of the creditor stands duly proved. 11. As far as the genuineness of the transaction is concerned, the assessee has demonstrated that the loan was received through proper banking channels. The entire loan was received through account payee cheques, and copies of bank statements highlighting the relevant transactions were submitted. Thus, the transaction stands duly supported by verifiable banking records, and the assessee has fully discharged its onus. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 12. On the contrary, the AO could not bring on record any documentary evidence to rebut or controvert the documents relied upon by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the decisions of : a) Gaurav Triyugi Singh V. Income Tax officer 24(3)(1) (2020) 121 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay) Wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that where assessee had received unsecured loan of certain amount from an individual, since loan amount was received by assessee through cheque and there was no dispute as to identity of creditor and genuineness of transaction and revenue could not prove or bring any material to impeach source of credit, no addition under section 68 could be made on account of this loan amount. b) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd 2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) Wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held where assessee- company had established identity, genuineness and capacity of shareholders who had subscribed to its shares, Assessing Officer was not justified in adding amount of share capital subscription as unexplained credit. 13. An important fact brought before us, as well as before the Revenue Authorities, is that the loan received by the assessee had already been repaid to M/s. Blooming Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. In Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 this regard, copies of the following documentary evidence have been placed on record: a) Copy of Income Tax Return Acknowledgement. b) Copy of Ledger Account highlighting bank transactions relating to loan repayment (selected transactions). c) Copy of Audited Financial Statements as on 31.03.2022. d) Copy of Loan Confirmation Account reflecting that the entire loan amount has been repaid. e) Copy of Annual Return along with Income Tax Return Acknowledgement for the year in which the loan was repaid. 14. On perusal of these documents, it can be clearly observed that the assessee has repaid the entire loan amount through proper banking channels. 15. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 held that where loan transactions are carried out through account payee cheques and the assessee has furnished necessary details of the creditors, no addition under Section 68 of the Act can be made. 16. In the present case, the entire loan was received through account payee cheques. The assessee has also paid interest on the said loan, on which TDS was duly deducted. The said interest has been reflected in the books of accounts and paid to the lender. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 17. More so, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Rajuram Savaji Purohit vs. ITO in ITA No. 3864/Mum/2024 has categorically held that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are not attracted where an unsecured loan has been duly availed and repaid. The operative portion of the order of the Coordinate Bench is contained in Paras 10 to 12 and the same is reproduced herein below: 10. We have carefully gone through all the relevant facts of the case, rival submission as also the provisions of law and cases relied upon. On going through the detailed submissions, it is found that the main reason for making the addition by the AO was the source of the loan taken by the assessee from certain company alleged to having links with an accommodation entry provider who admitted such act on his part during search and seizure. The AO based on such admission, treated the impugned loan as bogus and added u/s 68 of the Act to the income of the assessce. However, we find that all the ingredients of a genuine loan transaction are quite evident here. Identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction as also credit worthiness of the lender have not been disproved in any manner by the AO. Transaction involving loan taken and even its repayment are thought banking channels. The lender company is carrying on fully disclosed income is also active on ROC site. There is nothing brought on record to suggest that the impugned loan is assessee's unaccounted money channelized through the alleged lender. 10.1 It is worthwhile to examine following case laws which appear to be directly applicable to the facts of the case. In the case of H.R.Mehta vs. ACIT(2016) 72 Taxmann.com 110(Bom) where also the loan added u/s 68 of the Act by the AO was advanced and repaid vide account payee cheques. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while allowing appeal of the assessee observed that the AO should have provided assessce material used against him apart from providing opportunity to cross examine deponents whose stamen were relied upon. Para 16 In the instant case although the appellant assessee has called upon us to draw an inference that the burden shifted to the revenue in the present case once it was established that the payments were made and repaid by cheque we need not hasten and adopt that view after having given our thought to various issues raised and the decisions cited by Mr. Tralshawalla and finding that on a very fundamental aspect, the revenue was not justified in making addition at the time of reassessment without having first given the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the deponent on the statements relied upon by the ACIT. Quite apart from denial of an opportunity of cross examination, the revenue did not even provide the material on the basis of which the department sought to conclude that the loan was a bogus transaction. Para 17 In our view in the light of the fact that the monies were advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least that the revenue should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against assessee in arriving before passing the order Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 of reassessment. This not having been done, the denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the reassessment and therefore renders the orders passed by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal vulnerable. In our view the assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents. Despite the request dated 15th February, 1996 seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponent and furnish the assessee with copies of statement and disclose material, these were denied to him. In this view of the matter we are inclined to allow the appeal. 10.2 In the case of PCIT vs Ambe Tradecorp P.Ltd (2022) 145 Taxmann.com 27(Gujarat) -It is also pertinent to note that there was a response from the loan parties in response to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act wherein it was confirmed that these companies have advanced loan to the assessee. This reply of the loan parties cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the directors were not produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. It was the revenue which wanted to verify the directors of the loan companies. For this purpose, lot of powers were available with the revenue such as issuing notice under Section 131 of the Act for inviting the personal attendance of the directors. But the AO has not exercised such power in the given facts and circumstances. We also feel pertinent to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat high court in case CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251 where it was held as under: 'It is required to note that as such an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 vide cheque No. 102110 and an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs vide cheque No. 102111 was given to the assessce and out of the total loan of Rs. 1.60 crores, Rs. 15 lakhs vide cheque no. 196107 was repaid and therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000 remained outstanding to be paid to IA. It has also come on record that the said loan amount has been repaid by the assessee to 'IA' in the immediately next year and the Department had accepted the repayment of loan without probing into it. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the Tribunal has held that the matter is not required to be remanded as no other view would be possible, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. [Para 6] We are conscious of the fact that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are deeming provisions which implies that there are certain transactions which are not the income of the assessee but these are deemed as income under the relevant provisions of the Act. Thus, we have to see the deeming provisions beyond the facts available on record. However, the question arises for the adjudication whether only the credit entries should only be considered for the purpose of cash credit entries as provided under section 68 of the Act after ignoring the debit entries. To our mind the debit entries cannot be set aside for determining the income of the assessee & C.O. No. 199/Ahd/2016 Λ.Υ. 2012-13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, though the transactions of the loan received by the assessee are not free from any doubt but in either of the case, once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into isolation after ignoring the debit entries despite the debit entries were carried out in the later years. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.\" 10.3 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad DCIT Vs Asit Surendrabhai Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad) Appeal Number: ITA No. 945/Ahd/2018 Date of Judgement/Order: 02/08/2023 held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act don't attract as unsecured loan availed Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 was repaid in the next financial year through cheque payments to the creditor and bank statement thereof was filed. 10.4 In this case, even the lender companies in their reply to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act has submitted the requisite information and have admitted of giving the loans to the assessce company. There is nothing on record from the lender company admitting the loans given in the nature of accommodation entries to the company or the same have been channelized out of the undisclosed income of the appellant company. Nowhere it has been proved that the lender company was in chain in the accommodation entry cycle and the final beneficiary was the assessce company. As per the allegation of the AO, had the assessee been the final beneficiary of the accommodation entries, then no repayment of the said loans would have been made by it to the lender. On the contrary, their accounts have been settled and squared up in the subsequent year as discussed in the preceding paras of this order, which itself disproved the allegation of the Assessing Officer. So far as identity of the lender is concerned, the complete address and their PAN No. besides Income Tax Return ete. have been submitted, therefore, the same does not remain in doubt. With regard to the genuineness of the unsecured loans, the lender companies have provided their bank account statements highlighting the withdrawals towards the account payee cheque given as a loan to the company. Therefore, the same cannot be doubted. Further, with regard to the creditworthiness, the lender company have submitted the details with regard to sources of the lending which have been credited in their bank accounts. Thus, the immediate sources of the lending to the assessee company have been duly explained by the lender companies. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the borrowings have been proved from the details and evidences submitted in the assessment proceedings and does not call for any adverse inference. 10.5 It is also an admitted fact that no cross-examination was granted to the assessee though materials were considered adversely in its case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Andaman Timber Industries vs, Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II (2015, 62 taxmann.com 3 SC), held that when statements of witnesses are made basis of demand, not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses, is a serious flaw which makes order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show-Cause Notice. 10.6 In the case of CIT vs Ashwani Gupta(2010) 322 ITR 396(Del), Hon'ble Delhi High Court inter alia held that 7. ........................The Tribunal has correctly understood the law and applied it to the facts of the case. Once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to an assessee nor is cross-examination of the person on whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to a denial of opportunity and, consequently, would be fatal to the proceedings. Following the approach adopted by us in SMC Share Brokers (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration 10.7 Considering the discussion made above and respectfully relying on cited decisions(supra), we hold that the AO was not justified in treating the impugned sum as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and adding to the income of the assessee. The addition made is, therefore, deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 Ground no.3-Interest paid on alleged cash credit added u/s 69C 11. The ground is consequential as the impugned loan has been treated as genuine by us in the preceding paras above. The addition made is, deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Moreover, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Prathmesh Graphics and Digital vs. ITO in ITA No. 1461/Mum/2025 has also decided the issue on similar lines, and the operative portion of the same is contained in Paras 7 to 16, which is reproduced herein below: 7. We have heard Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgment cited before us and also the order passed by the revenue authorities. 8. From the record we noticed that additions in the present case were made by the AO u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act on account of the fact that assessee had availed unsecured loan from three parties i.e. Josh Trading Pvt. Ltd., Pragati Gems Pvt. Ltd. & Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd., of sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each from these companies. But the AO was of the view that creditworthiness of the loan in question was in doubt therefore, additions were made and sustained by the revenue authorities. 9. Whereas, on the contrary we noticed that in order to discharge its onus, assessee had submitted all the relevant documents during the course of assessment and also before the ld. CIT(A) in the shape of confirmation/loan ledger accounts of all the three parties, which are at paper book page No. 12,39 & 67. Apart from this assessee had also placed on record bank accounts of lender companies, income tax returns wherein acknowledgement of the lender company, audited financials for the F.Y.2012- 13 pertaining to the year under consideration and other important aspects of assessee's case is that assessee had also repaid the said unsecured loans and in this regard bank statement of the lender companies have already been placed on record in the shape of paper book thereby establishing the repayment of loan in question. Moreover, affidavit / declaration of the Directors of the lender companies thereby accepting the transactions have already been placed on record and Form 16A issued to the lender companies for the tax debited on the interest providing to them have also been placed on record. In our view since the assessee has fully and duly discharged its onus cast upon him and no fault has been found by the department in any of the documents as referred above and contained in paper book running into page No.1- 100. Moreover, we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs.Kinjal Enterprises bearing ITA No. No.50/Mum/2022 had dealt with identically same lender companies i.e. Josh Trading Pvt. Ltd., Pragati Gems Pvt. Ltd. & Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd., and deleted the respective addition in those cases. The Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Nisarga Lifespace LLP us. ITO; Praham India LLP vs. ITO, ITO vs. Design Deal Fashions Pvt. Ltd; DCIT us. Pyramid Infratech Co; ITO us. Pratima Ashar (2019) 107 taxmann.com 135, Mumbai Tribunal has already Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 dealt with identically same lender companies and deleted the respective additions. The relevant chart filed by the assessee is reproduced herein below:- 10. We noticed that additions were made by the AO merely on the ground that lenders did not appear, thus, in our view this cannot be the reason for disbelieving the genuineness of the transactions and even no adverse inference could have been made against assessee more particularly when the documents in the shape of ledger confirmations, bank statements showing receipt as well as repayment of loans, income tax returns, PAN, specific affidavits of the directors of the lending companies and evidences were duly filed before the revenue authorities which goes to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 11. Moreover, the AO merely relied upon the information received from the Investigation Wing in the case of one Pravin Kumar Jain and other entities. The statement on the basis of which additions were made were of third party and were of general in nature and had been specifically pointed out the unsecured loan transaction made in the case of assessee. Admittedly, no opportunity of cross examination was ever granted to the assessee while relying upon the statement of third person by the AO and even AO did not make any independent enquiries in order to determine as to whether the three ingredients i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness is established or not. Merely, AO rejected the documents based on the statement of third party in the absence of cross examination and without any independent enquiries. Thus, the action of the AO is illegal and against the provisions of law. It is important to mention and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT reported in (2016) 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble Court considered the addition under section 68 of the act as incorrect, since the unsecured. loan was received as well as repaid through banking channel and the material used against the taxpayer was not provided and an opportunity of cross examination was not given. 12. Even as per the facts of the present case, the 'loans were received and repaid through banking channel, and in this regard, the assessee has already placed on record all the relevant documents which were not disbelieved by the AO or Ld. CIT(A) and opportunity of cross examination opportunity was also not given. 13. We noticed that AO or Ld. CIT(A) instead of providing a cross examination opportunity of cross examination to the assessee, had made the additions by observing that the assessee had failed to bring the parties/lender companies before the revenue authorities. In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention her that the addition in the present case were made on the statements of a 'third party.' It is a settled law that any statement made behind the back of the person cannot be used against him till, an opportunity of cross examination is provided to the effected person. Thus in our view such a statement does not have any evidentiary value in the absence of cross examination. Since it is the responsibility of the revenue to provide to provide opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee but the revenue fail to discharge its responsibilities. On this proposition reliance is being placed upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of \"Rajuram Savaji Purohit vs. Income tax Officer [2024] 169 taxmann.com 18 (Mumbai Trib) 14. Even the additions on account of interest and commission made by the revenue by holding the unsecured loan as bogus are also incorrect as no specific observation in this regard were made by either of the authorities. Since in our view the additions made by the revenue authorities on account of unsecured loan are not sustainable therefore additions on account of interest or commission are also not sustainable. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) had relied upon certain case laws and after going through the same and considering the facts of the present case we found that the paramateria contained in the cited cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and legal proposition as discussed above and also keeping in view that the Coordinate Benches of ITAT have already been dealt with identically same lender companies and deleted the additions in respective case as discussed by us above. Moreover the assessee has successfully prove on record the loan already stood repaid, therefore in our considered view, the Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.24/Mum/2026 AO has wrongly made additions u/s.68 of the Act. Therefore, on the basis our above observations, we direct the AO to delete the same. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 18. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, and keeping in view the legal proposition and the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT on similar issues, we are of the view that since the assessee has proved on record and discharged its onus in establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with regard to the loan received, more particularly when it has also been proved that the loan has already been repaid, the AO had wrongly made the addition under Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. The ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25/03/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.24/Mum/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// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "