SAMKEET ARYA HOMES LLP,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

MA 23/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Samkeet Arya Homes LLP, which appealed against an order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,77,24,909 as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was related to unsecured loans taken from seven parties, which the assessee could not substantiate as genuine or creditworthy. The ITAT had previously noted that the lenders had minimal bank balances, no substantial income, and the transactions appeared to be circular in nature. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee argued that certain evidences were overlooked, but the Tribunal found that the application was essentially a request for a review, not a rectification of an apparent mistake.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312837 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVAN LIMBASIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRUNJAL SHAH
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.23/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. No.365/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Samkeet Arya Homes LLP, B-604, Shapath IV, Opp. Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad [PAN No.ACRFS2181D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Shrunjal Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 21.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.01.2025 upholding addition of Rs. 1,77,24,909/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of loans taken by the assessee from seven parties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from several parties, however, with respect to seven parties, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,77,24,909/- since the assessee could not satisfy the conditions as laid down under Section 68 of the Act. In appeal, ITAT noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had taken note of the loans with respect to these seven parties and had observed that the assessee could not M.A No.23/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 365/Ahd/2024) Samkeet Arya Homes LLP vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with respect to these seven parties. The ITAT, in it’s order had noted that while in some cases the lenders had given substantial advances to the assessee, wherein no return of income was filed by these lenders or that the lenders had declared minor income not commensurate with the amounts advances to the assessee. It was noted that in most of these cases, the bank accounts had minimal balances and there were no transactions in the bank account of the lenders and once the amount had been credited in the bank accounts of the lenders, the same were transferred to the assessee within a short gap of time. All these facts were specifically noted at Pages 6 to 9 and Pages 11-12 of the order passed by ITAT. Further, the ITAT, while passing the order specifically noted that the common trend amongst these seven lenders was that the bank statement of all the lenders displayed similar pattern: i.e. the credit balances were modest, a credit entry appeared followed by the withdrawal of a cheque for nearly the same amount which was advanced to the assessee, after which the bank balances reverted to their minimal levels. Further, the creditworthiness of these lenders could also not be established by the assessee. Therefore, in light of these facts the ITAT was of the considered view that for these seven creditors, the assessee could neither establish their genuineness nor their creditworthiness and accordingly, it was held that additions under section 68 of the Act were liable to be sustained in the hands of the assesee. 3. The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application stating that the ITAT has omitted to consider certain evidences in support of the creditworthiness of these seven parties. M.A No.23/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 365/Ahd/2024) Samkeet Arya Homes LLP vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– 4. On going through the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and written submission filed by the assessee, in our considered view, vide the present Miscellaneous Application, the assesee is only seeking a review of the considered view taken in the order passed by ITAT, which is clearly outside the purview of rectification under Section 254 of the Act. We note that the total loan of approximately 34 crores was received by the assessee for the impugned assessment year, out of which an addition of Rs. 1.77 crores was made by the Assessing Officer with respect to seven lenders wherein after issuance of summons, and taking the evidence placed by the assessee on record, the Ld. AO was of the considered view that neither the creditworthiness of these parties was established nor their genuineness was beyond doubt. While passing the order the Tribunal had taken into consideration, all the evidences filed by the assessee and was of the considered view that with respect to these seven parties, the assessee could not establish their genuineness or creditworthiness. It was specifically noted that common trend among the seven lenders were that they were either filing no return of income or were filing a low return of income not commensurate with the advances given to the assessee, these lenders were maintaining minimal balances in their bank account and once the amount was credited in their respective bank accounts, the amounts were immediately advanced to the assessee, after which the bank balance in their accounts reverted back to their minimal balances, as earlier. The facts with respect to each of these seven lenders were discussed in detail while passing the order by the Tribunal and the arguments as well as the details filed by the Counsel for the assessee were taken on record. We further note that out M.A No.23/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 365/Ahd/2024) Samkeet Arya Homes LLP vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– of approximately 34 crores which were the advances received by the assessee from various parties, it was only with respect of lenders amounting to Rs. 1.77 crores that the additions were confirmed in the hands of the assessee, after detailed discussion with respect to each of these seven lenders. On going through the order passed ty the Tribunal dated 16.01.2025, in our considered view, the Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order taking into consideration the assessee’s set of facts and while pressing the Miscellaneous Application the assessee is only seeking review of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is clearly outside the scope of Section 254 of the Act, which covers only apparent mistakes in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/04/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 30/04/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "