SANJAY MOHANLAL BAFNA,PUNE V. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

ITA 2047/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Mohanlal Bafna, an individual engaged in various businesses including manufacturing, money lending, and construction, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer to his income for the assessment year 2018-19. The additions were based on discrepancies noted between the capital reported in the assessee's ITR and his business balance sheet, and the classification of certain creditors. The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including detailed balance sheets and explanations for the discrepancies, and found that the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts, leading to an incorrect sustenance of the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474178 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 Assessment year : 2018-19 Sanjay Mohanlal Bafna A 33, Sagar Bunglow, Vidyasagar Colony, Market Yard, Pune - 411037 Vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune PAN: ABTPB8135H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT Date of hearing : 28-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 18-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business of manufacturing weighing scales, transducers, money lending and construction. He is also a partner in various firms. He filed his return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,17,17,710/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: 2 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 S. No. Issues i. Refund Claim ii. Deduction claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 80IA/80IAB/80IAC/IB/IC/IBA/80ID/80IE/10A/10AA iii. Share Capital / Other Capital iv. Other Income reported in Schedule A-OI not credited to P&L Account 3. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time as asked by the Assessing Officer. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that there is a difference between the capital account as per the business balance sheet and the capital account reported in the ITR. He further noted that the capital as on 31.03.2017 was Rs.5,72,65,831/- whereas the capital as on 31.03.2018 was Rs.45,94,20,606/- as per the I.T. Return. Thus, there is a huge difference of Rs.40,21,54,775/-, He, therefore, asked the assessee to reconcile the difference. It was explained by the assessee that the capital account as per the business balance sheet represented only the business capital whereas the capital account reported in ITR included the personal capital account balance as well. However, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the submissions made by the assessee. He accordingly made addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/- on the ground that the assessee failed to give any satisfactory explanation with supporting evidence. 3 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that there is a difference between Sundry Creditors as on 31.03.2017 and that of 31.03.2018 of Rs.13,60,27,619/- which is not supported by equal and consequential reduction in assets. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the difference of Rs.13,60,27,619/-. The assessee submitted that the difference was mainly on account of loan taken from Sanjay M Bafna, HUF which was shown as Sundry Creditors in the Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.03.2017. It was submitted that the said loan amount was shown under the head „Loan‟ in the Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.03.2018 as against the Sundry Creditors. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made addition of the same on the ground that there is no corresponding reduction in the amount of assets. The Assessing Officer thus completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.58,90,00,100/- 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the summary of Balance Sheets from financial year 2010-11 to 2017-18, Income analysis from financial year 2011-12 to 2017-18, Assets analysis from financial year 2011-12 to 2017-18, Capital summary from financial year 2005-06 to 2017-18 and IT acknowledgement and computation of income from financial year 2012-13 to 2017-18. It was argued before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC that the addition made is not justified and the difference in the capital was on account of mixing the personal balance sheet with business balance sheet. So far as the difference in Sundry Creditors is concerned, it was submitted that the amount shown as Sundry Creditor has been mentioned 4 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 mistakenly as the same is „unsecured loan‟. It was accordingly argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Sundry Creditor is not justified. 7. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. So far as the issue of difference in the capital account is concerned, he held that the assessee did not produce all these details before the Assessing Officer. According to Ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee regarding consolidation of both the balance sheets i.e. personal balance sheet and business balance sheet cannot be accepted. Since the assessee was required to file his balance sheet with his entire business transactions including his capital account, Profit and Loss Account from proprietorship concern, income from partners and other income. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/- by observing as under: “6.1.3 From the above submissions of appellant and the documents attached thereto, it is abundantly clear that the appellant is a prudent businessman, running business for the last three decades. However, when filing the ITR for the year under consideration as well as for the earlier Assessment years, he has got the accounts audited related to his proprietorship business only and not of his entire assets including the capital. In fact, the appellant has bifurcated his capital into two parts i.e. introduced in his proprietorship business and personal. It is quite amazing that the appellant who, is running his business for the last three decades, and also hires professional for auditing his accounts has drawn such bifurcation with respect to his capital. Further, while the actual capital has been detected during the scrutiny assessment, the appellant is giving lame excuses that the professional engaged by him inadvertently filed the consolidated financials in ITR which included details of assets, liabilities, incomes and expenses of my proprietary business as well as my other such personal (non-business). Not only this but the appellant has also stated that the figures have been filled mistakenly in the ITR-3, as if the ITR-3 is not appropriate. It is beyond imagination that the appellant is not acquainted with the general accounting norms, especially when he has hired the professionals for getting his accounts audited. From the 5 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 documentary evidences filed by the appellant it is apparent that the AO, while drawing the conclusion to make the addition with respect to Capital Introduced, has not committed any error or illegality. The submission made by the appellant, in this regard is not sacrosanct. The appellant, has also stated that since he had to claim the deduction under section 801A(4), he had to furnish separate balance sheet and profit and loss account of the said business along with audit report In Form 10CCB. However, it is not clear that by making this submission what relief the appellant wants to avail. Under all stretch of imagination, the appellant was required to file the audited balance sheet with respect to his entire business transactions including his capital, assets, profit & loss from proprietorship business, income from Partnership Firm and any other income whatsoever earned during the F.Y. 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19). It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant, who was fully aware with the scrutiny proceedings on account of the figures related to capital introduced during the A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19, did not rectify and continued to adopt the same practice during the A.Y.2022-23 too. So far as the appellant submission regarding acceptance of the financial results for the A.Y. 2016-17 and 2022-23 is concerned, the same is also not acceptable as the income tax proceedings for each year are considered to be separate and with respect to the same the principle of res-judicata is not applicable. 6.1.4 In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the addition made by the AO towards difference in proprietor's capital amounting Rs.40,21,54,775/- is sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed.” 8. So far as the issue of sundry creditor is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the same by observing as under: “7.1 With respect to the above addition the appellant vide his submission dated 04.02.2024 has stated that the amount shown as Sundry Creditor has been mentioned mistakenly as the same is 'unsecured loan. However, the appellant in support of his submission has not attached any documentary evidence along with copy of bank account statement. The appellant should have submitted the copy of confirmation letter of the concerned party, copy of respective ledger and the bank account entries, so as to prove the genuineness of the transactions. In absence of these documents the submission of the appellant is not acceptable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO with respect to the sundry creditor amounting Rs.13,60,27,619/- is also sustainable and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 is dismissed.” 9. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 6 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/-on account of alleged difference in proprietor's capital account without appreciating that no such addition was warranted on the facts of the case. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the learned A.O. was justified in making the addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/- being the difference between the opening capital as on 01.04.2017 and the closing capital as on 31.03.2017 since the assessee had failed to prove that the addition made by the A.O. was not correct. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the opening capital declared in ITR as on 01.04.2017 was inclusive of personal and business assets while the closing capital declared in ITR as on 31.03.2017 was only relating to the business assets and therefore, there was a difference between the two figures and since the alleged difference was totally explained by the assessee there was no reason to confirm the addition made of Rs.40,21,54,775/- and hence, the said addition made may kindly be deleted. 4] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the personal assets were acquired out of the income earned by the assessee over several years and duly offered to tax and hence, the addition made of Rs.40,21,54,775/- was not warranted and the same may kindly be deleted. 5] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the correct facts of the case while confirming the addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/- and accordingly, the addition made may kindly be deleted. 6] The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alleged additional evidences submitted by the assessee on the ground that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in not submitting the said evidences before the learned A.O. and thereby erred in confirming the addition made by the learned A.O. 7] The assessee submits that he had submitted the relevant details of all the personal assets to the learned A.O. in the course of asst. proceedings and accordingly, the evidences submitted by the assessee were not additional evidences and hence, the addition confirmed is not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 8] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,60,27,619/-en account of reduction and sundry creditors on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and hence, the addition made by the learned A.O. was justified. 9] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant had failed to submit confirmation, bank account and ledger of the concerned party to prove the 7 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 genuineness of the transaction and therefore, the addition made was justified. 10) The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition made of Rs.13,60,27,619/- was not justified at all and the reduction in the sundry creditors was on account of change in classification of certain amounts from sundry creditors to unsecured loans (same side of Balance sheet) and therefore, the addition made is not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 11] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 10. Grounds of appeal Nos.1 to 7 relates to the addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/-. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had prepared his balance sheet which includes the assets relating to solar business, money lending activities and construction activities. In the ITR form, the assessee has given the details of his assets on a consolidated basis by including business and personal assets. Referring to page 151 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the submissions made before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 22.03.2021 and submitted that the assessee had duly explained to the Assessing Officer that the difference is on account of preparation of consolidated balance sheet. He submitted that the assessee has filed the consolidated balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2018 before the Assessing Officer, copy of which is placed at pages 165 to 166 of the paper book. He submitted that the capital account balance as per the consolidated balance sheet tallies with the capital account balance as reported in ITR. Further, there are details of the assets and liabilities of the assessee on a consolidated basis. 8 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the comparison made by the Assessing Officer while making the addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/- is totally incorrect. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has compared the closing capital account balance reflected in the ITR form for assessment year 2017-18 of Rs.5,72,65,831/- vis-à-vis the closing capital account balance reflected in the ITR Form for assessment year 2018-19 of Rs.45,94,20,606/- and thereby made an addition of Rs.40,21,54,775/-. He submitted that the amount mentioned in the ITR form for assessment year 2017-18 pertains only to the business balance sheet while the amount mentioned in ITR form for assessment year 2018-19 is including the business assets as well as personal assets. Further, the closing capital account balance as per the business balance sheet for the year ended 31.03.2018 is Rs.11,21,81,842/. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted the consolidated balance sheet, however, the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the facts, made addition which is not justified. He submitted that there is no evidence with the Assessing Officer regarding any unaccounted assets acquired by the assessee during the year under consideration. Referring to the year-wise analysis of income and tax paid from assessment year 2006-07 to 2018-19, he drew the attention of the Bench to the same and submitted that the total income including exempt income earned by the assessee during the same period is more than Rs.45 crores. In order to substantiate the same, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: 9 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 14. Further, the assessment for assessment year 2016-17 was completed and in the course of assessment proceedings the consolidated balance sheet for the year ended 31st March 2016 was also furnished, copy of which is placed on page 189 of the paper book. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 10 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 143(3) of the Act, copy of which is placed at page 178 of the paper book, has accepted the same and has not made any addition on this issue. 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that for assessment year 2022-23 while filing the return of income, the assessee had committed identical mistake. In the ITR form for the said assessment year, the assessee had given the details of the capital account balance as per the consolidated balance sheet. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was clarified by the assessee that the difference in the capital account balances was due to the difference in the capital account as per business balance sheet and the consolidated balance sheet. The assessee had also submitted capital account balance as per business balance sheet and personal balance sheet from the year ended 31st March 2016. After verifying all the details, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without making any addition in the order passed u/s 143(3) on 18.03.2024, copy of which is placed on pages 167- 177 of the paper book. He submitted that since Assessing Officer in the instant case without understanding the issue made the addition and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly sustained the same, therefore, the addition should be deleted and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue should be allowed. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 11 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 17. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.45,94,20,606/- on the ground that the capital account of the assessee as on 31.03.2017 is Rs.5,72,65,831/- whereas the capital account as on 31.03.2018 is Rs.45,94,42,606/- and the assessee failed to explain to his satisfaction regarding the difference of Rs.40,21,54,775/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee in the ITR form has reported the closing capital balance as on 31.03.2018 at Rs.45,94,20,606/- which includes his business and personal capital account whereas the capital account as per the business balance sheet was Rs.11,21,81,842/-. It is also his submission that in the ITR form filed for assessment year 2017-18 the assessee had reported the details only relating to the business assets and accordingly had reported closing capital account balance of Rs.5,72,65,831/-. It is his submission that the difference between the two capital account balances is on account of reporting of all the personal liabilities and assets in the balance sheet in the ITR form where the assessee is required to give the details of his assets and liabilities. It is his submission that if the personal balance sheet and the business assets are compared for this year and the subsequent years along with year-wise analysis of income and tax paid, then there is absolutely no difference and the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified. 12 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 18. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find before the Assessing Officer the assessee vide letter dated 22.03.2021 copy of which is placed at pages 151 to 158 of the paper book has clarified the same which reads as under: “I am an individual assessee, and mainly I am carrying out a business of Generation of electricity by Solar technique, and other businesses For this business I have kept separate books of accounts supported by all detailed documentation, beside this 1 have also made certain investments in certain Partnership firms, shares of Listed/Unlisted companies, and from these activities also I am earning Dividend/Interest income every year. I have been advised that since I am carrying out Solar and Other Businesses I shall maintain the separate books of accounts and beside that, every year I maintain a separate Statement of Affairs of my all the activities including Solar and Other Businesses, this practice has been followed by me every year consistently. And accordingly every year I have been preparing one complete set of books for Solar and Other Businesses which includes Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet, these books are audited and accordingly Tax audit report is obtained from auditor, so while filing the Form No 3CD/3CB, as a mandatory annexure the Financial statements of only Solar Business were certified and attached by our auditors, therefore firstly it is clarified that the financial statement submitted with Tax audit reports are pertaining to only SOLAR AND OTHER BUSINESSES. Subsequently, at the time of filing the return in the prescribed form I have given the details of my combined Balance Sheet, (Statement of affairs), which is separately maintained by me, which includes my personal properties as well as Solar and Other Businesses assets liabilities etc. I enclose herewith following documents in support of the above contention, and state that there is no difference in Balance Sheet nor there is any mismatch rather it is pointed out that since audit is conducted only for my Solar and Other Businesses separate certified Financial Statements are submitted by the auditors, and I have submitted the combined Balance Sheet, including the Solar and Other Businesses financials in the return of income. a. Statement of affairs (Combined Balance Sheet) as on 31/03/2018. (Page No ) b. Solar and Other Businesses Balance sheet (Revised), and Profit and loss account, as attached with Tax audit report in Form no 3CD/3CB for AY 2018- 19.(Page No ) 13 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 c. Solar and Other Businesses Balance sheet(original), and Profit and loss account, as attached with Tax audit report in Form no 3CD/3CB for AY 2018-19. (Page No d. Statement of affairs (Combine Balance Sheet) as on 31/03/2017. (Page Nos ) e. Solar and Other Businesses Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account, as attached with Tax Audit report in Form No. 3CB/3CD for AY 2017-18 (Page Nos ) Perusal of these documents will reveal the fact that, all the figures are correctly reported, however there appears apparent confusion and we wish to explain the same in following paras; With this background I will answer the respective issues in following manner: …………………” 19. We find business balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2018 is as under: SANJAY M. BAFNA A 33, SAGAR BUNGALOW, VIDYASAGA COLONY, MARKET YARD, PUNE 411037 BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2018 LIABILITIES Rs Rs ASSETS Rs Rs CAPITAL ACCOUNT OP. BALANCE ADDITIONS: NET PROFIT LESS : DRAWINGS SUNDRY CREDITORS ENRICH SOLAR SERVICES PVT. LTD. LOANS : SANJAY M. BAFNA 57265831 52934396 110200227 1215565 108984662 200000 121110914 LAND – SOLAR PROEJCT – TELANGANA SUNDRY DEBTORS SOUTHERN POWER DISTRICT CO. OF TELANGANA LTD. INVESTMENTS – MUTUAL FUNDS, ETC. ENRICH ENERGY PVT. LTD. LOANS AND ADVANCES ASHOK D. CHORDIYA ALU GLASS KHINVASARA ASSOCIATES NEW ALU GLASS RAHUL P. KHINVASARA R A LANDMARK LLP CASH AND BANK BALANCES CITI BANK KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK CASH ON HAND 145000000 5000000 4000000 5000000 5000000 6000000 4077428 13453369 40194 3181350 3631287 35711948 200000 170000000 17570991 230295576 230295576 14 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 20. Similarly, the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2018, copy of which is placed at pages 165 and 166 reads as under: 15 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 21. A perusal of the personal balance sheet as on 31.03.2018 and the business balance sheet as on 31.03.2018 filed along with the return of income shows that in the business balance sheet the assessee has shown the business assets i.e. Solar project whereas in the personal balance sheet the assessee has disclosed all his personal assets as well as all the liabilities. In the asset side apart from the solar project business, shows his personal assets such as the value of shops, value of properties, buildings, investment in various firms, fixed deposits in banks, etc. We further find for assessment year 2016-17 the assessee had similarly filed the consolidated balance sheet, copy of which is placed at page 189 of the paper book which reads as under: 16 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 Sanjay Bafna [CONSOLIDATED] Balance Sheet as at 31st March, 2016 As at Schedule 31st March, 2016 No. (₹) Liabilities Capital Account 1 33,70,42,571 Loans 2 14,49,06,204 Current Liabilities 3 1,16,87,753 ___________ 50,36,36,527 ========= Assets Fixed assets 4 3,42,24,025 Investments 5 15,98,88,491 Sundry Debtors 6 63,17,704 Current assets 7 30,32,06,307 ___________ 50,36,36,527 ========= 22. We find the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2018 for assessment year 2016-17 accepting the said balance sheet. Similarly, for assessment year 2022-23 also the assessee had submitted the capital account as per business balance sheet and the personal balance sheet as on 31.03.2016 and the 17 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 Assessing Officer, after verifying the same, has accepted the claim of the assessee without making any addition in the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 18.03.2024, copy of which is placed at pages 167 to 177 of the paper book. It is pertinent to mention here that for assessment year 2022-23 the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the following reason: Reason Code Reason Description Issue BL01.02 Substantial increase in capital in a year Share Capital / Other Capital 23. From the various details furnished by the assessee we find the confusion arose in the minds of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC regarding the two capital account balances which is mainly due to the capital account as per the business balance sheet and the capital account as per the personal balance sheet. In the personal balance sheet, the assessee has disclosed his entire assets and liabilities whereas in the business balance sheet, only the business assets and liabilities are reflected. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the facts properly, have sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not justified. We accordingly set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The first issue raised by the assessee in grounds of appeal No.1 to 7 is accordingly allowed. 24. So far as the second issue as per grounds of appeal No.8 to 10 is concerned, the same relates to the addition of Rs.13,60,27,619/-. 18 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 25. Referring to page 164 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the Ledger account of Sanjay M Bafna which reads as under: SANJAY M BAFNA Citi Park Flat No. 105-106 Pitale Nagar Market Yard Contact : 020-24206001,9822029191 SANJAY M BAFNA (HUF) Ledger Account 1-Apr-17 to 31-Mar-10 Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No. Debit Credit 1-Apr-17 Dr Opening Balance 12,48,01,000.00 9-Oct-17 Dr CITI BANK A/C NO. 5104243705 Payment 246566 65,085.00 CH NO 246586/09. 10.2017 RS 65086 PAID TO TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD THROUGH MR MANE-7767814754 PH NO 020-67212121 DIRECT CALL NO-140 8-Mar-18 Cr HDFC BANK LTD A/C 01041530002273 BEING CH NO 000080 DT 8.3.2018 RS 3525000/- INFAVOUR OF SANJAY MOHANLAL BAFNA HUF NC Payment 000080 36,25,000.00 36,90,086.00 12,48,01,000.00 12,11,10,914 Cr Closing Balance 12,48,01,000.00 12,48,01,000.00 26. He submitted that this Ledger account was also submitted before the Assessing Officer. The said loan was shown under the head sundry creditor in assessment year 2017-18 which can be verified from the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, copy of which is placed at page 162 of the paper book. Therefore, merely because there is change in the head from sundry creditor to unsecured loan, the Assessing Officer should not have made the addition and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have confirmed the same. 19 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 27. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 28. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find from the balance sheet of Sanjay M Bafna as on 31.03.2017, copy of which is placed at page 162 of the paper book, that the assessee under the head „sundry creditor‟ has shown an amount of Rs.12,48,01,000/- in the name of Sanjay M. Bafna, HUF. A perusal of the Ledger account of Sanjay M Bafna, which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, shows the same account as the opening balance as on 01.04.2017 and after making certain payments, the closing balance of Rs.12,11,10,914/- has been arrived at which has been shown in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2018 under the head “loans – SANAJY M. BAFNA”. Thus, this is only a mere change in the nomenclature without any difference in the figures as per the Ledger account. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no error except the name change i.e. from sundry creditor to unsecured loans. Thus, the Assessing Officer, in our opinion was not justified in making the addition and the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was not justified in sustaining the same without appreciating the facts properly although those details were very much available with them and the explanation was given by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing 20 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are accordingly allowed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 18th March, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, „B‟ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 21 ITA No.2047/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 06.03.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 11.03.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "