RUBBERWALA REALTY,MUMBAI V. ITO- 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4019/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure, and Heks Infrastructure and Developers against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 52, Mumbai. The appeals were consolidated due to identical issues across different assessment years concerning the applicability of section 43CA and disallowances made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The primary contention was regarding the non-application of section 43CA to agreements made before 31.03.2013 and the treatment of certain loans as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal examined precedents and the specific circumstances of each case, leading to a decision that involved both the dismissal and restoration of certain matters for re-evaluation by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38031 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Spytech Builcon v. ACIT, Indexone Tradecone (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd., Krishna Enterprises vs ACIT, Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, CC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT, N. R. Portfolio P Ltd. vs. CIT, Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Peak credit; Retraction; Reopening of assessment; Accommodation entries; Bogus loan; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 43CA; 68; 131; 133(6); 113; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala House, Ground floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Vs. ACIT Cirecle-5(3)(2), 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. PAN NO. AACCR 7449 B Appellant Respondent ITA No. 4128 & 4131, 4130/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2011-12, 2012-13 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala House, Ground floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Vs. ACIT Cirecle-5(3)(1), Mumbai. PAN NO. AACCR 7449 B Appellant Respondent ITA No. 4019/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rubberwala Realty Rubberwala House, Ground floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Vs. ITO-19(3)(2), 2nd floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai. PAN NO. AANFR 3670 E Appellant Respondent ITA No. 3696/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hilton Infrastructure, Rubberwala House, Ground floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. PAN NO. AAFFH 3675 R Appellant ITA No. Assessment Year: 2012 Heks Infrastructure and Developers, Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. PAN NO. AAEFH 8317 F Appellant Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement PER BENCH The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals) – 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for relevant assessment years. As identical issue therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 Rubberwala House, Ground floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Vs. ITO-21(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Respondent ITA No. 4018/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Heks Infrastructure and Developers, Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A. Nair Road, Agripada, Vs. ITA-17(1)(5), Mumbai. Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prateek Jain by : Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17/10/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/10/2024 ORDER The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for relevant assessment years. As identical issues are involved in these appeals therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 2 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 , Sr. DR The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax 52, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for relevant involved in these appeals, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this ITA No. 4129/Mum/2 2. First, we take up the ITA No. 4129/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2014-15 in the case of Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 43CA were not applicable when allotment letters /agreement is made prior to 31.03.2013 and consideration is r mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making a disallowance of Rs. reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income at Rs.2,94,10,450/-. The assessee was en activity of construction and development and sale of flats. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income were issued and complied wit certain properties sold by the assessee were registered under the year under consideration and the properties shown in registered document was determined by the st the Assessing Officer invoked section 43CA of the Act and made addition for the difference amount between the stamp value as on Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 /Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2014 we take up the ITA No. 4129/Mum/2023 for assessment 15 in the case of Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 43CA were not applicable when allotment letters /agreement is made prior to 31.03.2013 and consideration is received either in full or in part, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making a disallowance of Rs. 2,03,05,828/- u/s 43CA of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income at . The assessee was engaged in the real estate of construction and development and sale of flats. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The Assessing Office sold by the assessee were registered under the year under consideration and the sale consideration shown in registered document was below the value which was determined by the stamp duty value authorities. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked section 43CA of the Act and made addition for the difference amount between the stamp value as on Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 3 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 (Assessment Year 2014-15) we take up the ITA No. 4129/Mum/2023 for assessment 15 in the case of Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 43CA were not applicable when allotment letters /agreement is made prior to 31.03.2013 and eceived either in full or in part, for the reasons 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making a u/s 43CA of the Act, for the Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income at gaged in the real estate of construction and development and sale of flats. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) h. The Assessing Officer observed that sold by the assessee were registered under the sale consideration of those was below the value which amp duty value authorities. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked section 43CA of the Act and made addition for the difference amount between the stamp value as on the date of the allotment and the sale consideration date of the allotmen Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to assessment year 2013 therefore, section 43CA of the Act which has been introduced w.e.f. assessment year 2014 the assessee relied on the decision of the Co Bombay Tribunal in the case of 27.01.2022 in ITA No. 2133/Mum/2019. The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Co Tribunal dated 16.07.2018 in the case of Ltd. [2018] 97 taxmann.com 174 (Jaipur Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 the date of the allotment and the sale consideration date of the allotment and this manner, he made total addition of in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the aterial on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to assessment year 2013 therefore, section 43CA of the Act which has been introduced w.e.f. year 2014-15 cannot be attracted. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay Tribunal in the case of Spenta Enterprises dated 27.01.2022 in ITA No. 2133/Mum/2019. The Ld. counsel also sion of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal dated 16.07.2018 in the case of Indexone Tradecone (P.) [2018] 97 taxmann.com 174 (Jaipur-Trib.). The Ld. counsel Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 4 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 the date of the allotment and the sale consideration agreed on the he made total addition of in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the aterial on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to assessment year 2013-14 and therefore, section 43CA of the Act which has been introduced w.e.f. 15 cannot be attracted. The Ld. counsel for ordinate Bench of the Spenta Enterprises dated 27.01.2022 in ITA No. 2133/Mum/2019. The Ld. counsel also ordinate Bench of the Jaipur Indexone Tradecone (P.) . The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 94 (Bombay) dispute is whether section 43CA of the Act has to be invoked year in which property was registered or the year in which property was sold by the assessee. As far as assessee is concerned, the assessee has already entered into an agreement to sale and shown the corresponding sales in earlier years in its books of accounts. Therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act has to be seen from the angle when the assessee has entered into its sales in its books of accounts and it cannot be construed to be treated effective in the year in which registration of the properties has taken place. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spen Enterprises (supra) after considering held that in a situation where agreement to sale has entered into in year prior to assessment year 2014-15, the section 43CA of the Act cannot be invoked. The relevant finding of the Tribunal “9. Upon assessee's appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has held that he was of the opinion that invariably the stamp value date on registration has to be adopted and hence, hewas upholding the order of the AO. I find that this is quiet contrary to what the AO has the assessee's contentions that he is in agreement that ready recoker value on the date of allotment is being considered. Hence, the reason for Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition is not as per the facts on record. In any case, I note that this is assessees plea that section 43CA was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and the agreement under consideration were entered into prior to 31.03.2013. Further, this is assessees plea that difference is only 5% between the ready recoker rate consideration. Hence, this is assessees plea that the same has to be Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 94 (Bombay). In the instant case the crucial issue in whether section 43CA of the Act has to be invoked year in which property was registered or the year in which property he assessee. As far as assessee is concerned, the assessee has already entered into an agreement to sale and shown the corresponding sales in earlier years in its books of accounts. Therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act has to be seen he angle when the assessee has entered into its sales in its books of accounts and it cannot be construed to be treated effective the year in which registration of the properties has taken place. ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spen Enterprises (supra) after considering held that in a situation where agreement to sale has entered into in year prior to assessment year section 43CA of the Act cannot be invoked. The relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced Upon assessee's appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has held that he was of the opinion that invariably the stamp value date on registration has to be adopted and hence, hewas upholding the order of the AO. I find that this is quiet contrary to what the AO has held. AO has clearly accepted the assessee's contentions that he is in agreement that ready recoker value on the date of allotment is being considered. Hence, the reason for Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition is not as per the facts on record. In e, I note that this is assessees plea that section 43CA was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and the agreement under consideration were entered into prior to 31.03.2013. Further, this is assessees plea that difference is only 5% between the ready recoker rate consideration. Hence, this is assessees plea that the same has to be Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 5 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 . In the instant case the crucial issue in whether section 43CA of the Act has to be invoked in the year in which property was registered or the year in which property he assessee. As far as assessee is concerned, the assessee has already entered into an agreement to sale and shown the corresponding sales in earlier years in its books of accounts. Therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act has to be seen he angle when the assessee has entered into its sales in its books of accounts and it cannot be construed to be treated effective the year in which registration of the properties has taken place. ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spenta Enterprises (supra) after considering held that in a situation where agreement to sale has entered into in year prior to assessment year section 43CA of the Act cannot be invoked. The is reproduced as under: Upon assessee's appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has held that he was of the opinion that invariably the stamp value date on registration has to be adopted and hence, hewas upholding the order of the AO. I find that held. AO has clearly accepted the assessee's contentions that he is in agreement that ready recoker value on the date of allotment is being considered. Hence, the reason for Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition is not as per the facts on record. In e, I note that this is assessees plea that section 43CA was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and the agreement under consideration were entered into prior to 31.03.2013. Further, this is assessees plea that difference is only 5% between the ready recoker rate and sale consideration. Hence, this is assessees plea that the same has to be ignored on the touchstone of ITAT, Mumbai decision in the case of Krishna Enterprises vs asessees succeeds on both the counts. the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 6.1 Further, the Co Indexone Tradecone (P.) Ltd. (supra) “13. In the present case, where the da of the two flats is 9.4.2007, which is much prior to the financial year relevant to assessment year 2014 43CA have become effective, there is no way the assessee would have foreseen these sell that it has to receive the consideration only by any mode other than cash. At the relevant point in time when it had entered into agreement to sell, there was no such requirement of receiving t consideration in mode other than cash. Therefore, in order to make the provisions of sub sub-section (4) would be applicable in respect of agreement to sell for transfer of an asset which and thus, not applicable in the instant case. remanded back to the file of the Id CIT(A) to the two properties in terms of sub agreement to sell which is 9.4.2007 and where it is so determined that such valuation is higher than what has been declared by the assessee, the same can be brought to tax in the year under consideration. 6.2 We note that the Tribunal in the case of M/s (supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indexone Tradecone (P.) Ltd. (supra), which is an earlier decision. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of that provisions of section 43CA are retrospectively. Since, the sale consideration in the case of the assessee have been years, in our opinion provision of section 43CA of the Act cannot be Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 ignored on the touchstone of ITAT, Mumbai decision in the case of Krishna Enterprises vs. ACIT. I am of the considered opinion that the asessees succeeds on both the counts. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indexone Tradecone (P.) Ltd. (supra) held as under: 3. In the present case, where the date of agreement to sell in respect of the two flats is 9.4.2007, which is much prior to the financial year relevant to assessment year 2014-15 when the provisions of section 43CA have become effective, there is no way the assessee would have provisions at the time of entering into the agreement to sell that it has to receive the consideration only by any mode other than At the relevant point in time when it had entered into agreement to sell, there was no such requirement of receiving the whole of the consideration in mode other than cash. Therefore, in order to make the provisions of sub-section (4) workable, in our view, the provisions of section (4) would be applicable in respect of agreement to sell for transfer of an asset which has been executed on or after Ist April, 2013 and thus, not applicable in the instant case. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the file of the Id CIT(A) to determine the valuation of the two properties in terms of sub-section (3) as on the date of agreement to sell which is 9.4.2007 and where it is so determined that such valuation is higher than what has been declared by the assessee, the same can be brought to tax in the year under consideration. We note that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Spyteck Buildcon (supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indexone Tradecone (P.) Ltd. an earlier decision. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd. (supra) held provisions of section 43CA are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Since, the sale consideration in the case of the assessee have been recorded in books of accounts in the earlier opinion provision of section 43CA of the Act cannot be Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 6 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 ignored on the touchstone of ITAT, Mumbai decision in the case of ACIT. I am of the considered opinion that the e, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.” ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of te of agreement to sell in respect of the two flats is 9.4.2007, which is much prior to the financial year 15 when the provisions of section 43CA have become effective, there is no way the assessee would have provisions at the time of entering into the agreement to sell that it has to receive the consideration only by any mode other than At the relevant point in time when it had entered into agreement he whole of the consideration in mode other than cash. Therefore, in order to make the section (4) workable, in our view, the provisions of section (4) would be applicable in respect of agreement to sell for has been executed on or after Ist April, 2013 The matter is accordingly determine the valuation of section (3) as on the date of agreement to sell which is 9.4.2007 and where it is so determined that such valuation is higher than what has been declared by the assessee, the same can be brought to tax in the year under consideration.” Spyteck Buildcon (supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indexone Tradecone (P.) Ltd. an earlier decision. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd. (supra) held applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Since, the sale consideration in the case of the recorded in books of accounts in the earlier opinion provision of section 43CA of the Act cannot be upheld retrospectively Representative (DR) that section 43CA(4) is concerned opinion that sub-section will be applicable in the case of agre to sale undertaken after 01.04.2014 and not in case of the agreement to sale enter in prior years. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. ITA No. 4128/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2017 7. Now we take up ITA No. 4128/Mum/2023 2017-18 in the case of Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. The relevant ground raised by the assessee 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowing payment of employees contribution of Provident fund and ESIC amounting to Rs. 2,83,050/ mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 7.1 In the case issue of delayed payment of employee and employee’s state insurance corporation amounting Rs.2,83,050/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “11. The appellant's argument that the issue cannot be a subject matter of disallowance is not acceptable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 upheld retrospectively. As far as contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) that section 43CA(4) is concerned section will be applicable in the case of agre to sale undertaken after 01.04.2014 and not in case of the agreement to sale enter in prior years. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. ITA No. 4128/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2017 Now we take up ITA No. 4128/Mum/2023 for assessment year 18 in the case of Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. The relevant ground raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in disallowing payment of employees contribution of Provident fund and ESIC amounting to Rs. 2,83,050/-, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. In the case issue-in-dispute involved is regarding disallowanc of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund state insurance corporation amounting . The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 11. The appellant's argument that the issue cannot be a subject matter of disallowance is not acceptable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 7 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 s far as contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) that section 43CA(4) is concerned, we are of the section will be applicable in the case of agreement to sale undertaken after 01.04.2014 and not in case of the agreement to sale enter in prior years. The grounds of appeal of the ITA No. 4128/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2017-18) for assessment year 18 in the case of Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in action of the Id. A.O. in disallowing payment of employees contribution of Provident fund , for the reasons dispute involved is regarding disallowance s contribution to provident fund(PF) state insurance corporation amounting(ESIC) to . The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant finding of the Ld. 11. The appellant's argument that the issue cannot be a subject matter of disallowance is not acceptable in view of the decision of the Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022. This issue stands settled now, and is no longer res integra. 12. In the recent case of CC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 698/Pun/2021 dt. of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. referred above and held that the amount was to be added back. 7.2 In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 8. Now we take ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwalla Realty, Mumbai for assessment grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/ 29.03.2016 which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in treating the unsecured loans from M/s. entries of Rs.5,00,000/ Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. interest amounting to Rs. 12,205/ for the reasons mentioned in the 8.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 09.02.2013 dec Subsequently, scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022. This issue stands settled now, and is no longer res integra. 12. In the recent case of CC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 698/Pun/2021 dt. 07.11.2022, the Hon'ble ITAT analysed the impact of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. referred above and held that the amount was to be added back. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the disallowance. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed. /Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2012 Now we take ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwalla Realty, Mumbai for assessment year 2012 grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2016 which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in treating the unsecured loans from M/s. Shree Bhairav Gems as accommodation entries of Rs.5,00,000/- by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 12,205/- paid with respect to the said loan, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 09.02.2013 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 8 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022. This issue 12. In the recent case of CC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. the Hon'ble ITAT analysed the impact of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. referred above and held that the amount was to be added back.” In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order we uphold the disallowance. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed. (Assessment year 2012-13) Now we take ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 in the case of year 2012-13. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the s 148 of the Act dated 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in treating the as accommodation provisions of section 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law A.O. in disallowing the paid with respect to the said loan, impugned order or otherwise. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed laring total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 09.03.2015, wherein total income Nil. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that survey action premises of M/s Rubberwalla Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. wherein director of the Rubberwalla Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. namely Shri Tabrez Shaikh (who is a partner of the assessee) in his statement recorded on oath taken accommodation entries of the unsecured loans parties by his group concern information, in the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition amou of the Act in relation to four parties having details as under: Sr. No. Name of Surat based concern providing accommodation entries 1. M/s Shree Bhairav 2. M/s Samta Exports Pvt. Ltd, 3. M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt. Ltd. 4. Shree Bhairav Gems Total 8.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition except amount of Rs.5,00,000/ Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance of the interest of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 completed on 09.03.2015, wherein total income was Nil. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that survey action u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Rubberwalla Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. wherein director of the Rubberwalla Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. namely Shri Tabrez Shaikh (who is a partner of the assessee) in his statement recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act admitted to have taken accommodation entries of the unsecured loans parties by his group concerns including the assessee. In view of the in the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition amounting to Rs.72,00,000/- in terms of section 68 of the Act in relation to four parties having details as under: Name of Surat based concern providing accommodation entries Amt. of accommodation entry (Rs,) M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000 M/s Samta Exports Pvt. Ltd, 37,00,000 M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt. Ltd. 20,00,000 Shree Bhairav Gems 5,00,000 72,00,000 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition except amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in respect of Shree Bhairav Diamond. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance of the interest of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 9 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 was assessed at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, information was received from the Investigation u/s 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Rubberwalla Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., wherein director of the Rubberwalla Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. namely Shri Tabrez Shaikh (who is a partner of the assessee) in u/s 131 of the Act admitted to have taken accommodation entries of the unsecured loans from certain including the assessee. In view of the in the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer in terms of section 68 of the Act in relation to four parties having details as under: Amt. of accommodation entry On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition except in respect of Shree Bhairav Diamond. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance of the interest of Rs.12,205/- paid to Shree Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(a) is reproduced as under: “9.3. The above findings substantiate that the appellant has been able to discharge its onus before the AO. As regards M/s Shree Bhairav Gems, the financials have not been furnished before the AO. In the case of M/s. Pratha in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was maintained and a Ba maintained by the Registrar of Companies. explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the onus has not been discharged by the appellant before the AO as far as M/s Shree Bhairav Gems is concerned. Thus it cannot be stated that the creditworthiness of the transactions in proved before the AO. Hence, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/ of loans stated to be received from Shree Bhairav Gems is upheld. Rest of the addition is deleted. 9.4. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pv 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also evident from para 7 of the said order, the addition as the a section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further discussion is required on this.” 8.3 Aggrieved with the disallowance of loan and interest in respect of Shree Bhairav Gems, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 8.4 As far as ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal Ld. counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely sustained the disallowance for the reason that financial of Shree Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 paid to Shree Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of . CIT(a) is reproduced as under: 9.3. The above findings substantiate that the appellant has been able to discharge its onus before the AO. As regards M/s Shree Bhairav Gems, the financials have not been furnished before the AO. In the case of M/s. Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was maintained and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the onus has not been by the appellant before the AO as far as M/s Shree Bhairav Gems is concerned. Thus it cannot be stated that the creditworthiness of the transactions in respect of this lender has been proved before the AO. Hence, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- of loans stated to be received from Shree Bhairav Gems is upheld. Rest of the addition is deleted. 9.4. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also evident from para 7 of the said order, \"...and direct the AO to delete the addition as the assessee has proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further discussion is required Aggrieved with the disallowance of loan and interest in respect of Shree Bhairav Gems, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. As far as ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal are Ld. counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely sustained the disallowance for the reason that financial of Shree Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 10 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 paid to Shree Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of 9.3. The above findings substantiate that the appellant has been able to discharge its onus before the AO. As regards M/s Shree Bhairav Gems, the financials have not been furnished before the AO. In the m Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was nk Statement, or a Company's Master Data The assessee is obliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the onus has not been by the appellant before the AO as far as M/s Shree Bhairav Gems is concerned. Thus it cannot be stated that the respect of this lender has been - in respect of loans stated to be received from Shree Bhairav Gems is upheld. 9.4. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. t. Ltd bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also \"...and direct the AO to delete proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further discussion is required Aggrieved with the disallowance of loan and interest in respect of Shree Bhairav Gems, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. are concerned, the Ld. counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely sustained the disallowance for the reason that financial of Shree Bhairav Gems were not submitted before the AO but same were duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which he did not consider. He further sub identical additions in respect of loan already paid in the case of group concern namely M/s Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021 has been deleted by the Tribunal. 8.5 On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8.6 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the stand of the assessee in respect of th where also identical information was received which the Ld. CIT(A) financial of said party were not filed before the Assessing Officer. Before us the ld Counsel for the assessee sub opportunity might be provided to the assessee documents. In view of above interest of substantial justice, CIT(A) in respect of loan of Rs.5,00,000/ credit and interest disallowance at Rs.12,205/ matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh The grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 were not submitted before the AO but same were duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which he did not consider. He further sub identical additions in respect of loan already paid in the case of group concern namely M/s Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021 has been deleted On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the stand of the assessee in respect of th also identical information was received. The the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance is that financial of said party were not filed before the Assessing Officer. Before us the ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that one more opportunity might be provided to the assessee In view of above prayer of the assessee and in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of loan of Rs.5,00,000/- held as unexplained cash credit and interest disallowance at Rs.12,205/- and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh The grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 11 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 were not submitted before the AO but same were duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which he did not consider. He further submitted that identical additions in respect of loan already paid in the case of group concern namely M/s Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021 has been deleted On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the stand of the assessee in respect of three loan parties . The only basis on the disallowance is that financial of said party were not filed before the Assessing Officer. mitted that one more for filing said prayer of the assessee and in the we set aside the finding of the Ld. held as unexplained cash and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh. The grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical restored the grievance of the assessee on merit of adjudication of the validity of the assessment made u/s 147 of the Act raised by way of ground No. 1 is rendered academic and therefore, same is not req left open. ITA No. 3696/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011 9. Now, we take 3696/Mum/2023 in the case of Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai for assessment 2011-12. The grounds raise reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in holding that the loan taken by the appellant from M/s. Pearl Enterprises and its repayment thereon is non impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT, (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in disallowed the interest amounting to Rs. 15,39,443/ the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 9.1 Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the case the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 24.12.2018 loan of Rs.1,37,84,370/ to be unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. But the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said additions as money was received in earlier year. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as unde Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 for statistical purpose. Since, we have already the grievance of the assessee on merit to the AO, the issue adjudication of the validity of the assessment made u/s 147 of the Act raised by way of ground No. 1 is rendered academic and therefore, same is not required to be adjudicated at this stage and ITA No. 3696/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011 we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3696/Mum/2023 in the case of Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai for 12. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in holding that the loan taken by the appellant from M/s. Pearl Enterprises and its repayment thereon is non-genuine, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT, (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in disallowed mounting to Rs. 15,39,443/- paid on unsecured loan, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the case the vide his order dated 24.12.2018 made addition for 1,37,84,370/- received from M/s Pearl Enterprises held to be unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. But the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said additions as money was received in earlier year. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as unde Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 12 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 . Since, we have already to the AO, the issue adjudication of the validity of the assessment made u/s 147 of the Act raised by way of ground No. 1 is rendered academic and uired to be adjudicated at this stage and ITA No. 3696/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011-12) appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3696/Mum/2023 in the case of Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai for d by the assessee are 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in holding that the loan taken by the appellant from M/s. Pearl Enterprises and its genuine, for the reasons mentioned in the 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law CIT, (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in disallowed paid on unsecured loan, for Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the case the made addition for received from M/s Pearl Enterprises held to be unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. But the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said additions as money was received in earlier year. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “7.11. Thus, the essential ingredient for application of S.68 is that the moneys should have been received, i.e. credited. In the instant case, the part money have been repaid during the year. In my view, the provisions of S.68 cannot be applied on such notwithstanding my observations in the earlier paragraphs, the addition of Rs. 1,37,84,370/ Allowed.” 9.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance on the payment of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.15,39,433/ said party. Aggrieved by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 9.3 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on recor brought on record whether the corresponding addition in the relevant assessment year for the money received from M/s Pearl Enterprises was made in the hands of the assessee or not. Unless the credit from the said part no addition could have been made in said party. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. ITA No. 4018/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2012 10. Now, we take up the Heks Infrastructure and Developers, Mumbai for assessment year Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 7.11. Thus, the essential ingredient for application of S.68 is that the moneys should have been received, i.e. credited. In the instant case, the part money have been repaid during the year. In my view, the provisions of S.68 cannot be applied on such repayment of loan. Hence, notwithstanding my observations in the earlier paragraphs, the addition of Rs. 1,37,84,370/- made u/s.68 stands deleted. This ground stands However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance on the st expenditure amounting to Rs.15,39,433/ said party. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not brought on record whether the corresponding addition in the relevant assessment year for the money received from M/s Pearl Enterprises was made in the hands of the assessee or not. Unless the credit from the said party is held to be unexplained cash credit no addition could have been made in respect of the interest said party. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly A No. 4018/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2012 up the ITA No. 4018/Mum/2023 in the case of Heks Infrastructure and Developers, Mumbai for assessment year Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 13 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 7.11. Thus, the essential ingredient for application of S.68 is that the moneys should have been received, i.e. credited. In the instant case, the part money have been repaid during the year. In my view, the repayment of loan. Hence, notwithstanding my observations in the earlier paragraphs, the addition made u/s.68 stands deleted. This ground stands However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance on the st expenditure amounting to Rs.15,39,433/- to the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused d. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not brought on record whether the corresponding addition in the relevant assessment year for the money received from M/s Pearl Enterprises was made in the hands of the assessee or not. Unless held to be unexplained cash credit the interest from said party. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly A No. 4018/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ITA No. 4018/Mum/2023 in the case of Heks Infrastructure and Developers, Mumbai for assessment year 2012-13. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts a (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.11.2016 which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of Appe (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in treating the unsecured loans taken by the appellant from M/s. Shree Bhairav Gems as non- order or otherwise. 3. On the facts (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A. of Rs. 5,00,000/ appellant treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 10.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income on 31.08.2012. Subsequently on receipt of the information from the Director General tax (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee had taken bogus loan entries from group companies of Shri Pravee reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act after recording reasons to believe reassessment was completed on 30.11.2016 amounting to Rs.15,00,000/ Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. recorded , it was shown to had been three parties: Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 13. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as 1. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.11.2016 which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in treating the unsecured loans taken by the appellant from M/s. Shree Bhairav -genuine, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an addition 5,00,000/- on, account of unsecured loan taken by the appellant treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income on 31.08.2012. Subsequently on receipt of the information from the Director General tax (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee had taken bogus loan entries from group companies of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, the assessment was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. The reassessment was completed on 30.11.2016, wherein addition amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- from loan received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. was made, whereas shown to had been received from the following Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 14 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 13. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as nd circumstances of Appellant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated llant's case and in law CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in treating the unsecured loans taken by the appellant from M/s. Shree Bhairav genuine, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law CIT O. in making an addition on, account of unsecured loan taken by the appellant treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income on 31.08.2012. Subsequently on receipt of the information from the Director General of Income- tax (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee had taken bogus loan entries from he assessment was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act after assessment. The wherein addition from loan received from M/s whereas in the reason received from the following (a) Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 6,00,000/ (b) Shree Bhairav Gems, Rs. 5,00,000/ (c) M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt Ltd. Rs. 4,00,000/ 10.2 The Ld. CIT(A) however deleted the addition in respect of two parties but sustained addition Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “8.2. As regards loan of Rs. 4,00,000/ Exports Pvt Ltd., it is seen that the appellant has furnished copy of ITR acknowledgment, ledger confirmation, bank statement and balance sheet Thus, it can be concluded that the appellant has been able to adequately discharge the onus laid on it. Apart from the statement of Shri Gautam B Jain there is no other independent eviden contrary view. Hence, this addition stands deleted. 8.3. As regards loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ Diamond Pvt. Ltd. It is seen that the appellant has furnished copy of ITR acknowledgment, ledger confirmation, bank stateme sheet. Thus, it can be held that the appellant has been able to adequately discharge the onus laid on it. Apart from the statement of Shri Gautam B Jain there is no other independent evidence to take a contrary view. Hence, this addition sta 8.4. The appellant has stated that Rs. 5,00,000/ from Shree Bhairav Gems. The appellant has stated that it has furnished the copy of ITR acknowledgment and ledger confirmation. The financials are not submitted meaning does not stand established by the appellant. I find from the ledger confirmation and ITR that these supporting evidences are in respect Shree Bhairav Gems. However, the balance sheet of the appellant shows outstanding l Shree Bhairav Gems. creditworthiness of the said party has been furnished. In the case of M/s. Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was maintained and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 (a) Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 6,00,000/- (b) Shree Bhairav Gems, Rs. 5,00,000/- & (c) M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt Ltd. Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) however deleted the addition in respect of two parties but sustained addition of Rs.5,00,000/- in respect of Shri Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced 8.2. As regards loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- received from M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt Ltd., it is seen that the appellant has furnished copy of ITR cknowledgment, ledger confirmation, bank statement and balance sheet Thus, it can be concluded that the appellant has been able to adequately discharge the onus laid on it. Apart from the statement of Shri Gautam B Jain there is no other independent eviden contrary view. Hence, this addition stands deleted. 8.3. As regards loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- received from Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. It is seen that the appellant has furnished copy of ITR acknowledgment, ledger confirmation, bank statement and balance sheet. Thus, it can be held that the appellant has been able to adequately discharge the onus laid on it. Apart from the statement of Shri Gautam B Jain there is no other independent evidence to take a contrary view. Hence, this addition stands deleted. 8.4. The appellant has stated that Rs. 5,00,000/- has been received from Shree Bhairav Gems. The appellant has stated that it has furnished the copy of ITR acknowledgment and ledger confirmation. The financials are not submitted meaning thereby that the creditworthiness does not stand established by the appellant. I find from the ledger confirmation and ITR that these supporting evidences are in respect Shree Bhairav Gems. However, the balance sheet of the appellant shows outstanding loans from Shree Bhairav Gems Pvt Ltd and not Shree Bhairav Gems. No evidence regarding the financial standing or creditworthiness of the said party has been furnished. In the case of M/s. Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA f 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was maintained and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the istrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 15 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 The Ld. CIT(A) however deleted the addition in respect of two in respect of Shri Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced received from M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt Ltd., it is seen that the appellant has furnished copy of ITR cknowledgment, ledger confirmation, bank statement and balance sheet Thus, it can be concluded that the appellant has been able to adequately discharge the onus laid on it. Apart from the statement of Shri Gautam B Jain there is no other independent evidence to take a received from Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. It is seen that the appellant has furnished copy of ITR nt and balance sheet. Thus, it can be held that the appellant has been able to adequately discharge the onus laid on it. Apart from the statement of Shri Gautam B Jain there is no other independent evidence to take a has been received from Shree Bhairav Gems. The appellant has stated that it has furnished the copy of ITR acknowledgment and ledger confirmation. The thereby that the creditworthiness does not stand established by the appellant. I find from the ledger confirmation and ITR that these supporting evidences are in respect of Shree Bhairav Gems. However, the balance sheet of the appellant oans from Shree Bhairav Gems Pvt Ltd and not No evidence regarding the financial standing or creditworthiness of the said party has been furnished. In the case of M/s. Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA f 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was maintained and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the istrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the same has not been done by the appellant before the AO. Hence, on a consideration of entire obvious that the appellant has not discharged the onus laid on it. The addition of Rs. 5,00,000/ 8.5. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also evident from para 7 of the said order, \"...and direct the AO t has proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No fur 10.3 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground th mind while recording the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. The Ld. counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded that loan of Rs.15,00,000/ Karishma Diamonds P found that no such loan was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The Ld. DR before us has also not amount was received from M opinion, no such loan was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The reasons to believe recorded that income escaped assessment Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the same has not been done by the appellant before the AO. Hence, on a consideration of entire obvious that the appellant has not discharged the onus laid on it. The addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-stands confirmed. 8.5. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also evident from para 7 of the said order, \"...and direct the AO to delete the addition as the assessee has proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further discussion is required on this.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while recording the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. The Ld. counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded that loan of Rs.15,00,000/- was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., whereas on verification the Ld. CIT(A) no such loan was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The Ld. DR before us has also not controverted this fact that no such amount was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. In our no such loan was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The reasons to that income escaped assessment are Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 16 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the same has not been done by the appellant before the AO. Hence, on a consideration of entire facts, it is obvious that the appellant has not discharged the onus laid on it. The 8.5. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing ITA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also evident from para 7 of the o delete the addition as the assessee has proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of at the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while recording the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. The Ld. counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer was received from M/s whereas on verification the Ld. CIT(A) no such loan was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The Ld. this fact that no such /s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. In our no such loan was received from M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The reasons to are based purely on non-application of the min such loan was received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in respect of another party which was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In view of the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained and same are quashed. Since reassessment proceeding has already been quashed by us no addition on merit could be sustained in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground assessee are allowed. ITA No. 4131/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011 11. Now, we take up appeal of the assessee in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. in ITA No. 4131/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2011 Assessing Officer made addit passed u/s 147 of the Act amounting to Rs.30,00,000/ 11.1 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition/disallowance observing as under: “6.1. I have considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. According to the appellant, it has discharged its onus by furnishing copy of ITR acknowledgment, ledger confirmation and financial statement of M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. Besides, the appellant has filed copies of its bank accounts to substantiate i that funds have been received in its bank account. However, the fact is that the AO had issued S.133(6) notice to M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. which was not complied with. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 application of the mind where he has not verified such loan was received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in respect of another party which was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In view of the proceedings cannot be sustained and same are quashed. Since reassessment proceeding has already been quashed by us no addition on merit could be sustained in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds No. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the lowed. ITA No. 4131/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011 we take up appeal of the assessee in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. in ITA No. 4131/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2011-12. In the case, the Assessing Officer made addition in his order dated 29.12.2018 passed u/s 147 of the Act amounting to Rs.30,00,000/ On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition/disallowance observing as under: 6.1. I have considered the facts of the case and submission of the ant. According to the appellant, it has discharged its onus by furnishing copy of ITR acknowledgment, ledger confirmation and financial statement of M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. Besides, the appellant has filed copies of its bank accounts to substantiate i that funds have been received in its bank account. However, the fact is that the AO had issued S.133(6) notice to M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. which was not complied with. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 17 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 he has not verified that any such loan was received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in respect of another party which was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In view of the proceedings cannot be sustained and same are quashed. Since reassessment proceeding has already been quashed by us no addition on merit could be sustained in the case of the No. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the ITA No. 4131/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011-12) we take up appeal of the assessee in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. in ITA No. 12. In the case, the ion in his order dated 29.12.2018 passed u/s 147 of the Act amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the 6.1. I have considered the facts of the case and submission of the ant. According to the appellant, it has discharged its onus by furnishing copy of ITR acknowledgment, ledger confirmation and financial statement of M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. Besides, the appellant has filed copies of its bank accounts to substantiate its claim that funds have been received in its bank account. However, the fact is that the AO had issued S.133(6) notice to M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. 6.2. It may be noted that the appellant had availed loan from the same party during AY 2016 dt. 31.07.2023. \"23.2. According to the AO, an analysis of the financials of the lender i.e. M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. does not establish creditworthiness of the entity and genuinenes the alleged lender which remained uncomplied with. Having considered the entire facts and reasoning given by the AO, I am of the view that the appellant has not been able to discharge its onus as regards S. effectively. The addition stands CONFIRMED.\" 6.3. Under these and the same, the addition stands CONFIRMED. 11.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that addition has been sustained me 133(6) of the Act were not complied with and Ld. counsel submitted that assessee is willing to provide current address of the said party to the Assessing Officer and necessary verification may be carried out by way of issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the new address. In view of the above facts and circumstances appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh the facts and circumstances of the case. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 4132/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011 12. Now, we take up ITA No. 4132/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Housing and I Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 6.2. It may be noted that the appellant had availed loan from the same AY 2016-17 which was decided by this office vide its order dt. 31.07.2023. According to the AO, an analysis of the financials of the lender i.e. M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. does not establish creditworthiness of the entity and genuineness of the transactions. The AO issued 133(6) to the alleged lender which remained uncomplied with. Having considered the entire facts and reasoning given by the AO, I am of the view that the appellant has not been able to discharge its onus as regards S. effectively. The addition stands CONFIRMED.\" 6.3. Under these circumstances, and considering that the party is one same, the addition stands CONFIRMED.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that addition has been sustained merely for the reason that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act were not complied with and Ld. counsel submitted that assessee is willing to provide current address of the said party to the Assessing Officer and necessary verification may be carried sue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the new address. In view of the above facts and circumstances appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing afresh after carrying out inquiries facts and circumstances of the case. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 4132/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011 we take up ITA No. 4132/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai for Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 18 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 6.2. It may be noted that the appellant had availed loan from the same 17 which was decided by this office vide its order According to the AO, an analysis of the financials of the lender i.e. M/s Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. does not establish creditworthiness of s of the transactions. The AO issued 133(6) to the alleged lender which remained uncomplied with. Having considered the entire facts and reasoning given by the AO, I am of the view that the appellant has not been able to discharge its onus as regards S. 68 circumstances, and considering that the party is one Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that rely for the reason that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act were not complied with and Ld. counsel submitted that assessee is willing to provide current address of the said party to the Assessing Officer and necessary verification may be carried sue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the new address. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing out inquiries as deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 4132/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2011-12) we take up ITA No. 4132/Mum/2023 in the case of nfrastructure Ltd., Mumbai for assessment year 2011 reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2016 which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. same as unexplained cash credit by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, for reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 12.1 In the case also the unsecured loan received amountin Rs.86,50,000/- by the assessee as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act but the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amounting to Rs.52,00,000/ sustained addition amounting to Rs.5,00,000/ Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.29,50,000/ Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “6.1. I have considered the facts of the case. The AO had made addition of Rs.86,50,000/ loans received from the following parties: 1 2 3 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 assessment year 2011-12. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2016 which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- on account of unsecured loan treating the same as unexplained cash credit by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, for reasons mentioned in the impugned order or In the case also the unsecured loan received amountin by the assessee was held by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act but the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amounting to Rs.52,00,000/ addition amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- from Sh Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.29,50,000/- from M/s Shree Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 6.1. I have considered the facts of the case. The AO had made addition of Rs.86,50,000/- in respect of ved from the following parties:- Name of concern Amount Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd. 52,00,000 Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000 Shree Bhairav Gems 29,50,000 Total 86,50,000 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 19 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 12. The grounds raised by the assessee are 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an on account of unsecured loan treating the same as unexplained cash credit by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, for reasons mentioned in the impugned order or In the case also the unsecured loan received amounting to Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act but the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amounting to Rs.52,00,000/- but from Shree Bhairav from M/s Shree Bhairav Gems. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 6.1. I have considered the facts of the case. The AO in respect of 6.2. Apparently these are concerns managed by Bhanwarlal Jain and are not genuine in nature. A survey was conducted at the premises of assessee on 29.09.2014. During the survey, statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh was recorded. He details of the loans at the time of survey so as to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. Accordingly, he offered the peak balance for taxation. 6.3 Shri Tabrez Shaikh subsequently filed an affidavit stating that he had erroneously disclosed the genuine transactions of loan amount as accommodation entri before the tax authorities, I concur with the AO that unless coercion is shown to have been exerted, the statement cannot be discarded. It is also noted that the retraction affidavit is dt. 29.09.2015 and was submitted much later to the department while survey was conducted on 29.09.2014. Hence, this aspect of the argument of the appellant is rejected. 6.4. At the same time in respect of addition of u/s 68, what one needs to see is whether the appellant is able discharge the onus placed as regards id creditworthiness and genuineness. In the case of Manoj Agarwal, 113 ITD 377, DoJ: 25.07.2008, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) has interpreted the decision of Noorjehan and held as: \"178... It is well under section 68 the burden side to the other depending upon the evidence adduced.\" In CIT vs N. R. Portfolio P Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi HC), it was held by that : \"8.....the concept of \"shifting onus\" does not mean that once certain fac duties are over. If on verification, or during proceedings, the AO cannot contact the share applicants, or that the information becomes unverifiable, or there are further doubts in the pursuit of such details, the onus shift back to the assessee. At that stage, if it falters, the consequence may well be an addition under Section 68\". Hence notwithstanding the fact that the statement was given or retraction was made, the issue is examined independently on the basis of evidenc Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 6.2. Apparently these are concerns managed by Jain and are not genuine in nature. A survey was conducted at the premises of assessee on 29.09.2014. During the survey, statement of Shri Tabrez Shaikh was recorded. He could not furnish the details of the loans at the time of survey so as to entity, genuineness and creditworthiness. Accordingly, he offered the peak balance for taxation. Shri Tabrez Shaikh subsequently filed an affidavit stating that he had erroneously disclosed the genuine transactions of loan amount as accommodation entries before the tax authorities, I concur with the AO that unless coercion is shown to have been exerted, the statement cannot be discarded. It is also noted that the retraction affidavit is dt. 29.09.2015 and was submitted much later to the department while the survey was conducted on 29.09.2014. Hence, this aspect of the argument of the appellant is rejected. 6.4. At the same time in respect of addition of u/s 68, what one needs to see is whether the appellant is able discharge the onus placed as regards identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. In the case of Manoj Agarwal, 113 ITD 377, DoJ: 25.07.2008, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) has interpreted the decision of Noorjehan and held as: \"178... It is well-settled that under section 68 the burden keeps shifting from one side to the other depending upon the evidence adduced.\" In CIT vs N. R. Portfolio P Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi HC), it was held by Hon'ble Court that : \"8.....the concept of \"shifting onus\" does not mean that once certain facts are provided, the assessee's duties are over. If on verification, or during proceedings, the AO cannot contact the share applicants, or that the information becomes unverifiable, or there are further doubts in the pursuit of such details, the onus shift back to the assessee. At that stage, if it falters, the consequence may well be an addition under Section 68\". Hence notwithstanding the fact that the statement was given or retraction was made, the issue is examined independently on the basis of evidences and Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 20 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 6.2. Apparently these are concerns managed by Jain and are not genuine in nature. A 29.09.2014. During the survey, statement of Shri could not furnish the details of the loans at the time of survey so as to entity, genuineness and creditworthiness. Shri Tabrez Shaikh subsequently filed an affidavit stating that he had erroneously disclosed the genuine es before the tax authorities, I concur with the AO that unless coercion is shown to have been exerted, the statement cannot be discarded. It is also noted that the retraction affidavit is dt. 29.09.2015 and was the survey was conducted on 29.09.2014. Hence, this 6.4. At the same time in respect of addition of u/s 68, what one needs to see is whether the appellant is able entity, creditworthiness and genuineness. In the case of Manoj Agarwal, 113 ITD 377, DoJ: 25.07.2008, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) has interpreted the decision settled that keeps shifting from one side to the other depending upon the evidence adduced.\" In CIT vs N. R. Portfolio P Ltd. (2013) 214 Hon'ble Court that : \"8.....the concept of \"shifting onus\" does not mean ts are provided, the assessee's duties are over. If on verification, or during proceedings, the AO cannot contact the share applicants, or that the information becomes unverifiable, or there are further doubts in the pursuit of such details, the onus shifts back to the assessee. At that stage, if it falters, the consequence may well be an addition under Section 68\". Hence notwithstanding the fact that the statement was given or retraction was made, the issue is es and whether the appellant has been able to adequately discharge its onus. 6.4. As regards the loan from M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd., I find that the appellant has furnished the following before the AO (a) Audited financial statements for the year ended 31.0 further seen from the confirmation that interest of Rs. 56,244/- has been charged for the year. It is further seen that the appellant has also furnished copies of bank statement of M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd. reflectin the loan transactions. The copy of ITR, Tax Audit Report and financials of the said party relevant to AY 2011 have also been furnished. This is also evident from para 5 (i) at page 4 of the assessment order, where the AO has confirmed that these docum Considering the totality of facts before me, I am of the view that the appellant has been able to discharge the onus laid before it as regards section 68. There is no other information which would warrant a different view. In the given 52,00,000/- made in the case of M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd. stands 6.5 As regards Rs. 5,00,000/ Diamond Pvt. Ltd.and Rs. 29,50,000/ Bhairav Gems, the appellant has furnished the following: copy of ledger confirmation. Besides, the appellant has furnished copy of its bank account to substantiate its claim that funds having received from the said entities. income/financials have not been furnished. In the case of M/s. Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was maintained and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the onus has not been before the AO as far as M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 whether the appellant has been able to adequately discharge its onus. 6.4. As regards the loan from M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd., I find that the appellant has furnished the following before the AO (a) Audited financial statements for the year ended 31.03.2011 (b) Confirmation of balance. It is further seen from the confirmation that interest of Rs. has been charged for the year. It is further seen that the appellant has also furnished copies of bank statement of M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd. reflectin the loan transactions. The copy of ITR, Tax Audit Report and financials of the said party relevant to AY 2011-12 have also been furnished. This is also evident from para 5 (i) at page 4 of the assessment order, where the AO has confirmed that these documents were furnished. Considering the totality of facts before me, I am of the view that the appellant has been able to discharge the onus laid before it as regards section 68. There is no other information which would warrant a different view. In the given circumstances, the addition of Rs. made in the case of M/s Kush Gems Pvt. 6.5 As regards Rs. 5,00,000/- from M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd.and Rs. 29,50,000/- from M/s Shree Bhairav Gems, the appellant has furnished the wing: copy of ledger confirmation. Besides, the appellant has furnished copy of its bank account to substantiate its claim that funds having received from the said entities. However, the return of income/financials have not been furnished. In the case Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was d and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the onus has not been completely discharged by the appellant before the AO as far as M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 21 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 whether the appellant has been able to adequately 6.4. As regards the loan from M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd., I find that the appellant has furnished the following before the AO (a) Audited financial statements for the 3.2011 (b) Confirmation of balance. It is further seen from the confirmation that interest of Rs. has been charged for the year. It is further seen that the appellant has also furnished copies of bank statement of M/s Kush Gems Pvt. Ltd. reflecting the loan transactions. The copy of ITR, Tax Audit Report 12 have also been furnished. This is also evident from para 5 (i) at page 4 of the assessment order, where the AO ents were furnished. Considering the totality of facts before me, I am of the view that the appellant has been able to discharge the onus laid before it as regards section 68. There is no other information which would warrant a different view. circumstances, the addition of Rs. made in the case of M/s Kush Gems Pvt. from M/s Shree Bhairav from M/s Shree Bhairav Gems, the appellant has furnished the wing: copy of ledger confirmation. Besides, the appellant has furnished copy of its bank account to substantiate its claim that funds having received from However, the return of income/financials have not been furnished. In the case Pratham Telecom India P Ltd vs DCIT dated 17.09.2018 in ITA no.316 of 2016, the Hon'ble jurisdictional HC has held that \"The assessee cannot simply provide some details such as Permanent Account Number, business address, the account which was d and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Data maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee is obliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and the backdrop in which the transactions took place.\" It can be seen that the onus completely discharged by the appellant before the AO as far as M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shree Bhairav Gems are concerned. Thus it cannot be stated that the creditworthiness or genuineness of the lenders has been proved before the AO. Hence, the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/ be received from M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Shree Bhairav Gems is upheld. 6.6. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied in the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing TA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is also evident from para 7 of the said order, the AO to delete the addition as the assessee has proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appella taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further discussion is required on this. 6.7. In effect addition of Rs. 52,00,000/ while addition of Rs. 34,50,000/ 12.2 We note that identical addition in respect of loan from Shree Bhairav Gems has been officer while adjudicating appeal in ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Realty and therefore, following our findin present additions are also ITA No. 4130/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2012 13. Now, we take up ITA No. 4130/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai for Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shree Bhairav Gems are concerned. Thus it cannot be stated that the creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions in respect of these as been proved before the AO. Hence, the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- in respect of loans stated to be received from M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt.Ltd. M/s Shree Bhairav Gems is upheld. 6.6. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing TA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is dent from para 7 of the said order, \"...and direct the AO to delete the addition as the assessee has proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated based on the submission of the appellant, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further discussion is required on this. 6.7. In effect addition of Rs. 52,00,000/- is deleted, while addition of Rs. 34,50,000/-is upheld.” We note that identical addition in respect of loan from Shree Bhairav Gems has been restored by us to the file of the assessing while adjudicating appeal in ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Realty and therefore, following our findin present additions are also decided mutasis mutandis ITA No. 4130/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2012 we take up ITA No. 4130/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai for Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 22 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shree Bhairav Gems are concerned. Thus it cannot be stated that the creditworthiness or transactions in respect of these as been proved before the AO. Hence, the in respect of loans stated to be received from M/s Shree Bhairav Diamond Pvt.Ltd. 6.6. I have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal the case of one of the group company of the appellant, i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd bearing TA No. 299 & 314/Mum/2020 dated 23.11.2021. It is well known that addition u/s.68 is based on facts and the ability to discharge onus. This is \"...and direct proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act\". In the instant case too, the facts have been appreciated nt, and decisions taken in the preceding paragraphs. No further is deleted, We note that identical addition in respect of loan from Shree to the file of the assessing while adjudicating appeal in ITA No. 4019/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Realty and therefore, following our finding the mutasis mutandis. ITA No. 4130/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2012-13) we take up ITA No. 4130/Mum/2023 in the case of Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai for assessment year 2012 reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in alleging that the appellant had taken unsecured loans in the form of a entries, treating the same as unexplained cash credit, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the interest paid to amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/ order or otherwise. 13.1 From the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) ground has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that no such ground was taken in the appeal. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “9. The appellant has made a written submission regarding disallowance of Rs. 1,80,000/ also forms part of the been taken in the \"grounds of appeal\". Hence, no adjudication is required on this.” 13.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has no adjudicated the ground and restore the matter back to him with the dir assessee to raise said ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed f statistical purposes. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 assessment year 2012-13. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in alleging that the appellant had taken unsecured loans in the form of accommodation entries, treating the same as unexplained cash credit, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the interest paid to M/s. A2 Jewels amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/-, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. From the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that said ground has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason d was taken in the appeal. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 9. The appellant has made a written submission regarding disallowance of Rs. 1,80,000/- being interest expenditure. It is seen that this issue also forms part of the statement of facts. However, no such ground has been taken in the \"grounds of appeal\". Hence, no adjudication is required We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has no adjudicated the ground, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him with the dir said ground specifically before the ld CIT(A) ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed f Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 23 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 ds raised by the assessee are 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in alleging that the ccommodation entries, treating the same as unexplained cash credit, for the reasons 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the M/s. A2 Jewels , for the reasons mentioned in the impugned we find that said ground has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason d was taken in the appeal. The relevant finding 9. The appellant has made a written submission regarding disallowance being interest expenditure. It is seen that this issue statement of facts. However, no such ground has been taken in the \"grounds of appeal\". Hence, no adjudication is required We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him with the direction to the before the ld CIT(A). The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for 14. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed indicated below: Sr. No. ITA No. 1. 4129/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) 2. 4128/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) 3. 4019/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) 4. 3696/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) 5. 4018/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) 6. 4131/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) 7. 4132/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) 8. 4130/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/10/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed indicated below: ITA No. Name of Assessee 4129/Mum/2023 Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. Allowed 4128/Mum/2023 Rubberwala Holding and Infrastructure Ltd. Dismissed 4019/Mum/2023 Rubberwalla Realty Allowed 3696/Mum/2023 Hilton Infrastructure Allowed 4018/Mum/2023 Heks Infrastructure and Developers Allowed 4131/Mum/2023 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Allowed for statistical purposes 4132/Mum/2023 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Dismissed 4130/Mum/2023 Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Allowed for statistical purposes nounced in the open Court on 28/10/2024. - Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 24 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed or Result Allowed Dismissed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed for statistical purposes Dismissed Allowed for statistical purposes /10/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers ITA Nos. 4129 & 4132 4130/MUM/2023, 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Rubberwala Realty, Hilton Infrastructure & Heks Infrastructure and Developers 25 Nos. 4129 & 4132, 4128 & 4131, , 4019/M/23, 3696/M/23 & 4018/M/2023 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "