SUKETU RAJNIKANT JHAVERI,MUMBAI V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD

ITA 2125/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Suketu Rajnikant Jhaveri, the appellant, who contested an addition of 4,50,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2008-09, which was made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on the suspicion that the loan from M/s. Natasha Enterprises was an accommodation entry. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including the loan's purpose for repaying a housing loan and its subsequent repayment. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not substantiate the allegations with any direct evidence or discrepancies in the documents provided by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had met the requirements of section 68 by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transaction, thus shifting the burden of proof back to the Revenue, which it failed to meet.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837803 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKNATH ABHANG
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SANGHVI VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 68; 131; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2125/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2008-2009) Suketu Rajnikant Jhaveri, C/o R.C. Reshamwala & Co., CAs, 323, Varma Chambers, 11 Homji Street, Fort, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 001 PAN : AACPJ 2155 R vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kirit Sanghvi (virtual) For Revenue : Shri Eknath Abhang, Addl.CIT (virtual) Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [“CIT(A)”] dated 15/07/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 29.01.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.2125/PUN./2025 (Suketu Rajnikant Jhaveri) 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 4,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) invoking section 68 of the Act for the alleged accommodation entry received from M/s. Nitasha Enterprises. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee referring to the submissions made before the lower authorities submitted that assessee filed all necessary details to explain the nature and source of loan of ₹ 4,50,000/- which was taken by the assessee for the purpose of repaying housing loan and the alleged loan has been repaid back after two years. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I notice that assessee received loan of ₹4,50,000/- from M/s. Natasha Enterprises during the year under consideration. The assessee has declared income of ₹17,14,260/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 filed on 09.08.2008. Ld.AO based on the information about the alleged involvement of M/s. Natasha Enterprises with Shri Praveen Jain and that M/s. Natasha Enterprises is engaged in providing accommodation entries has made the impugned addition for the loan taken by the assessee. I observe that the assessee in order to explain the nature and source of loan taken from M/s. Natasha Enterprises has filed the ledger, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.2125/PUN./2025 (Suketu Rajnikant Jhaveri) confirmation, complete address and PAN no. of the proprietor of M/s. Natasha Enterprises, bank statement, original loan confirmation, income tax return along with balance sheet and profit & loss account of M/s. Natasha Enterprises. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has subsequently repaid loan. Now once the assessee has discharged its primary onus casted upon it, as provided the provisions of section 68 of the Act by filing necessary evidence to explain the identity and genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the cash creditor then the burden of proof shifts on the Revenue which is required to find any material controverting the details filed by the assessee. However, in the instant case, there is no observation of the Ld.AO that any information has been called for from M/s. Natasha Enterprises by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act or issued any summons u/s. 131 of the Act nor any discrepancy has been communicated in the documents furnished by the assessee. The only basis observed by the Ld.AO is the relation between M/s. Natasha Enterprises and Shri Praveen Jain. However, prior to amendment made in section 68 effective from 01.04.2013, assessee was required to file the details to explain the nature and source of sum received by it and not the source of source to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. 6. Under these given facts and circumstances and also considering the income of ₹ 17,14,260/- offered in ITR and the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.2125/PUN./2025 (Suketu Rajnikant Jhaveri) alleged loan having been repaid subsequently, I am of the considered view that since the assessee has successfully explained the nature and source of alleged sum with sufficient documentary evidence, the Ld.AO grossly erred in invoking section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, impugned finding is reversed and addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at ₹ 4,50,000/- is deleted. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 16th February, 2026 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "