UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI V. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1098/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves cross-appeals by the assessee, Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, and the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary issues revolved around the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, which pertained to unexplained cash credits and agricultural income, respectively. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the handling of additional evidence and the need for a thorough examination of the financial transactions and claims made by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782309 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Principal CIT (Central) v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Onus to prove; TDS; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Right to appeal; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 68; 133(6); 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 989/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT-42(1)(1), Room No. 732, 7th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC East, Mumbai-400051. Vs. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, C-4304 Oberoi Exquisite Oberoi Garden City, Off. Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. PAN NO. ADEPN 6898 E Appellant Respondent ITA No. 1098/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Office No. 6, 1st floor, Rajbahadur Mansion, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Hemam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400032. Vs. ITO Circle 42(1)(1), AO Type-C, AO No. 91, Range- 431, Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ADEPN 6898 E Appellant Respondent CO. No. 73/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 989/MUM/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Office No. 6, 1st floor, Rajbahadur Mansion, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Hemam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400032. Vs. DCIT-42(1)(1), Room No. 732, 7th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ADEPN 6898 E Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement PER BENCH The cross appeals objection of the assessee are directed against order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 20 cross-objection pertain to same impugned order, therefore, same were heard together and dispose order for the sake of convenience. 2. Firstly, we take up the Revenue for adjudication. Revenue in their appeals reproduced as under: Assessee’s Appeals: (1) ADDITION OF RS. 4,18,82,630/ CREDIT U/S. 68 (1.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] perversely erred in confirming the alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82,630/ unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68 of the ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 : Mr. Haresh P Shah : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 pronouncement : 29/10/2025 ORDER The cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are directed against order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19. As the cross appeals and objection pertain to same impugned order, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Firstly, we take up the cross appeals of the assessee Revenue for adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee and Revenue in their appeals reproduced as under: Assessee’s Appeals: (1) ADDITION OF RS. 4,18,82,630/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 - (1.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] perversely erred in confirming the alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82,630/ unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68 of the Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 2 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR the assessee and the Revenue and cross- objection of the assessee are directed against order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. 19. As the cross appeals and objection pertain to same impugned order, therefore, same off by way of this consolidated of the assessee and The grounds raised by the assessee and AS UNEXPLAINED CASH (1.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] perversely erred in confirming the alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82,630/- as unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68 of the Printed from counselvise.com Act disregarding the categorical finding by the learned ITO in the Remand Report that the details of the alleged unexplained loans were test checked and found to be correct. (1.2) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned NFAC failed to appreciate tha the initial onus and satisfied the learned ITO in substantiating the genuineness of the alleged unexplained cash credits and hence, it ought to have been deleted. (1.3) Without prejudice to the above, on the facts circumstances, completely disregarding the categorical finding and conclusion in Remand Report dated 08/01/2024, the learned NFAC, inter-alia, erred in holding that the alleged unexplained cash credits were not satisfactorily explained their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions merely alleging that the Appellant failed to give details of the source of lending. (1.4) Without prejudice to the main contention, the learned NFAC ought to have appreciated before confirming the alleged additio that the learned ITO had failed in his duties before making any addition as such because during the impugned assessment proceedings the Appellant hadcategorically requested, vide letter dated 08/03/2021 to the learned ITO to issue notice u/s. 133(6) to the respective lenders. (1.5) Without prejudice to the main contention that the initial onus was discharged by the Appellant, with reference to the explanation recorded at para f' in page no. 3 of the impugned appellate order, the learned NFAC failed to app Appellant was not given fair/sufficient & proper opportunity to submit the requisite details and explanation i.r.t. the Show Notice dated 24/09/2021 as it was issued calling upon to submit and explain the details by the date 27/09/2 apparently, insufficient time and hence, in these circumstances it was necessary to submit additional details, documents and explanations during the appellate proceedings. (1.6) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellant prays that the alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82,630/ Act may be deleted mainly because the learned ITO has considered the details, documents and explanation and found to be correct in the Remand Proceedings. (2) ADDITION OF RS. 20,68,736/ RECEIPT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 egarding the categorical finding by the learned ITO in the Remand Report that the details of the alleged unexplained loans were test checked and found to be correct. (1.2) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant had completely discharged the initial onus and satisfied the learned ITO in substantiating the genuineness of the alleged unexplained cash credits and hence, it ought to have been deleted. (1.3) Without prejudice to the above, on the facts circumstances, completely disregarding the categorical finding and conclusion in Remand Report dated 08/01/2024, the learned alia, erred in holding that the alleged unexplained cash credits were not satisfactorily explained their hiness and genuineness of the transactions merely alleging that the Appellant failed to give details of the source of (1.4) Without prejudice to the main contention, the learned NFAC ought to have appreciated before confirming the alleged additio that the learned ITO had failed in his duties before making any addition as such because during the impugned assessment proceedings the Appellant hadcategorically requested, vide letter dated 08/03/2021 to the learned ITO to issue notice u/s. 133(6) he respective lenders. (1.5) Without prejudice to the main contention that the initial onus was discharged by the Appellant, with reference to the explanation recorded at para f' in page no. 3 of the impugned appellate order, the learned NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant was not given fair/sufficient & proper opportunity to submit the requisite details and explanation i.r.t. the Show Notice dated 24/09/2021 as it was issued calling upon to submit and explain the details by the date 27/09/2021 which was, apparently, insufficient time and hence, in these circumstances it was necessary to submit additional details, documents and explanations during the appellate proceedings. (1.6) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellant that the alleged addition of Rs.4,18,82,630/- u/s. 68 of the Act may be deleted mainly because the learned ITO has considered the details, documents and explanation and found to be correct in the Remand Proceedings. (2) ADDITION OF RS. 20,68,736/- BEING GROSS AGRICULTURE RECEIPT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68- Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 3 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 egarding the categorical finding by the learned ITO in the Remand Report that the details of the alleged unexplained loans (1.2) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned NFAC t the Appellant had completely discharged the initial onus and satisfied the learned ITO in substantiating the genuineness of the alleged unexplained cash credits and hence, it (1.3) Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances, completely disregarding the categorical finding and conclusion in Remand Report dated 08/01/2024, the learned alia, erred in holding that the alleged unexplained cash credits were not satisfactorily explained their hiness and genuineness of the transactions merely alleging that the Appellant failed to give details of the source of (1.4) Without prejudice to the main contention, the learned NFAC ought to have appreciated before confirming the alleged addition that the learned ITO had failed in his duties before making any addition as such because during the impugned assessment proceedings the Appellant hadcategorically requested, vide letter dated 08/03/2021 to the learned ITO to issue notice u/s. 133(6) (1.5) Without prejudice to the main contention that the initial onus was discharged by the Appellant, with reference to the explanation recorded at para f' in page no. 3 of the impugned reciate that the Appellant was not given fair/sufficient & proper opportunity to submit the requisite details and explanation i.r.t. the Show- cause Notice dated 24/09/2021 as it was issued calling upon to submit 021 which was, apparently, insufficient time and hence, in these circumstances it was necessary to submit additional details, documents and (1.6) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellant u/s. 68 of the Act may be deleted mainly because the learned ITO has considered the details, documents and explanation and found to GROSS AGRICULTURE Printed from counselvise.com (2.1) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the alleged amount of gross agricultural receipts as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating that th Appellant had dully explained with reference to the details and documents in support and substantiated the agricultural receipts during the year under consideration. (2.2) On the facts and circumstances the Appellant prays that the claim of the Appellant Rs. 20,68,736/ agricultural receipts. (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/ AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 69C – (3.1) On the fact confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 12,09,809/ which were incurred & claimed in performing agricultural activities disregarding the categorical finding by the learned ITO in the Remand proce (3.2) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC perversely erred in confirming the alleged addition conveniently ignoring the categorical recording & finding of the learned ITO in Remand Proceedings that the Appellant had submitted the relev and the same were test checked and found to be correct. (3.3) On the facts and circumstances, the Appellant prays that the alleged addition/disallowance may be deleted/allowed & oblige. (4) ADDITION OF RS.20,000/ 8,42,94,769/7 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C (4.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the alleged of Rs. 20,000/ by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of the matured policy amount of Rs.80,000/ Appellant's daughter Pooja Naik merely because the amount of premium was paid by the Appellant, (4.2) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellant prays that the alleged addition of Rs.20,000 by virtue of section 60 of the Act may be deleted as it was uncalled and Revenue’s Ground ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 (2.1) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the alleged amount of gross agricultural receipts as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating that th Appellant had dully explained with reference to the details and documents in support and substantiated the agricultural receipts during the year under consideration. (2.2) On the facts and circumstances the Appellant prays that the claim of the Appellant may be accepted and the alleged addition of Rs. 20,68,736/- may be deleted and accepted as exempted agricultural receipts. (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT (3.1) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 12,09,809/ which were incurred & claimed in performing agricultural activities disregarding the categorical finding by the learned ITO in the Remand proceedings. (3.2) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC perversely erred in confirming the alleged addition conveniently ignoring the categorical recording & finding of the learned ITO in Remand Proceedings that the Appellant had submitted the relev and the same were test checked and found to be correct. (3.3) On the facts and circumstances, the Appellant prays that the alleged addition/disallowance may be deleted/allowed & oblige. (4) ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- OUT OF ORIGINAL ADDITION OF 42,94,769/7 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C (4.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the alleged of Rs. 20,000/- as deemed income by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of tured policy amount of Rs.80,000/- pertaining to the Appellant's daughter Pooja Naik merely because the amount of premium was paid by the Appellant, (4.2) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellant prays that the alleged addition of Rs.20,000/- as deemed income by virtue of section 60 of the Act may be deleted as it was unjustified. Revenue’s Ground Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 4 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 (2.1) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the alleged amount of gross agricultural receipts as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant had dully explained with reference to the details and documents in support and substantiated the agricultural receipts (2.2) On the facts and circumstances the Appellant prays that the may be accepted and the alleged addition of may be deleted and accepted as exempted BEING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT s and circumstances, the learned NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 12,09,809/- which were incurred & claimed in performing agricultural activities disregarding the categorical finding by the learned ITO in the (3.2) On the facts and circumstances, the learned NFAC perversely erred in confirming the alleged addition conveniently ignoring the categorical recording & finding of the learned ITO in Remand Proceedings that the Appellant had submitted the relevant details and the same were test checked and found to be correct. (3.3) On the facts and circumstances, the Appellant prays that the alleged addition/disallowance may be deleted/allowed & oblige. OUT OF ORIGINAL ADDITION OF 42,94,769/7 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C – (4.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned NFAC as deemed income by virtue of the section 60 of the Act holding it as forming part of pertaining to the Appellant's daughter Pooja Naik merely because the amount of (4.2) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Appellant as deemed income by virtue of section 60 of the Act may be deleted as it was Printed from counselvise.com 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,42,74,769/ u/s 69C of the IT Act without appreciating that no evidences were brought on record suggesting repayment of loan. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,42,74,769/ merely relying on the report of the AO without examining the fact that sources of the re examined during remund proceeding. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in accepting the rem without examining the issue as to whether the assessee ever submitted the evidences suggesting repayment of loan. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may 3. Briefly stated, the material facts, as borne out from the record, are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 22.01.2019 declaring a total income of ₹2,65,11,770/–. The return was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income duly issued and partly complied with. 3.1 The assessee, being a partner in several partnership firms engaged in construction activity, is also the sole proprietor of G.N. Construction, which is likewise engaged in real estate development. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) noticed unsecured loans aggregating to ₹4,18,82,630/– received during the year. The assessee merely furnished confirmations of accounts wi substantiating the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,42,74,769/ u/s 69C of the IT Act without appreciating that no evidences were brought on record suggesting repayment of loan. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,42,74,769/ elying on the report of the AO without examining the fact that sources of the re-payment of loan/ advances were never examined during remund proceeding. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in accepting the remand report on this issue in Toto without examining the issue as to whether the assessee ever submitted the evidences suggesting repayment of loan. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary. , the material facts, as borne out from the record, are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 22.01.2019 declaring a total income of . The return was selected for scrutiny and statutory the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) were duly issued and partly complied with. The assessee, being a partner in several partnership firms engaged in construction activity, is also the sole proprietor of , which is likewise engaged in real estate development. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) noticed unsecured loans aggregating to received during the year. The assessee merely furnished confirmations of accounts without any cogent evidence substantiating the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 5 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,42,74,769/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act without appreciating that no evidences were 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,42,74,769/- by elying on the report of the AO without examining the fact payment of loan/ advances were never 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. and report on this issue in Toto without examining the issue as to whether the assessee ever submitted the evidences suggesting repayment of loan. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new , the material facts, as borne out from the record, are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 22.01.2019 declaring a total income of . The return was selected for scrutiny and statutory tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) were The assessee, being a partner in several partnership firms engaged in construction activity, is also the sole proprietor of M/s , which is likewise engaged in real estate development. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) noticed unsecured loans aggregating to received during the year. The assessee merely thout any cogent evidence substantiating the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of Printed from counselvise.com the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. 3.2 The AO further made addition of squared-off loans during the year, and another addition of ₹20,68,736/– on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having earned agricultural income. The agri ₹12,09,809/– were also disallowed as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹15,59,67,710/ vide order dated 29.09.2021. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee tendered certain additional evidences such as PAN, income confirmations of the alleged creditors. However, we observe with some concern that no formal application seeking admission of such additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income was filed. 4.1 Nevertheless, the Ld. CIT(A), in the exercise of her discretion, transmitted the said documents to the AO for verification. The AO, however, conducted only a perfunctory and partial inq test-check basis and submitted a brief remand report. Relying upon this limited verification, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of Section 68 of the The AO further made addition of ₹8,42,94,776/ off loans during the year, and another addition of on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having earned agricultural income. The agricultural expenses of were also disallowed as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee 15,59,67,710/– under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2021. d. CIT(A), the assessee tendered certain additional evidences such as PAN, income-tax returns, bank statements, and confirmations of the alleged creditors. However, we observe with some concern that no formal application seeking admission of such l evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Nevertheless, the Ld. CIT(A), in the exercise of her discretion, transmitted the said documents to the AO for verification. The AO, however, conducted only a perfunctory and partial inq check basis and submitted a brief remand report. Relying upon this limited verification, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 6 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 the creditors. The AO therefore treated the said loans as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of Section 68 of the 8,42,94,776/– representing off loans during the year, and another addition of on account of alleged agricultural receipts, observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of having cultural expenses of were also disallowed as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act d. CIT(A), the assessee tendered certain additional tax returns, bank statements, and confirmations of the alleged creditors. However, we observe with some concern that no formal application seeking admission of such tax Rules, 1962 Nevertheless, the Ld. CIT(A), in the exercise of her discretion, transmitted the said documents to the AO for verification. The AO, however, conducted only a perfunctory and partial inquiry on a check basis and submitted a brief remand report. Relying upon this limited verification, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Printed from counselvise.com ₹4,18,82,630/– under Section 68, observing that the lenders were bereft of financial capacity, that the transactio commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT (Central) Appeal No. 2463 of 2019, dated 05.0 court reiterated that the onus lies squarely upon the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. reproduced as under: “However, on perusal of the evidences detailed above, it is observed that the income in ROI showed by these Loan providers is much less in comparison to the amount of loan provided by them. It raises a concern as to how a person can afford to lend the signi it is the business of the person to lend the money. However, on perusal of confirmation of these accounts, submitted by the appellant, it is observed that no interest was paid on these loans. Therefore, it further ra any person would provide loan of significant amount in comparison to his/her income that too without charging any interest. Thus, the appellant has failed to justify the creditworthiness and financial capacity of the credit motive of the loan providers. Even the genuineness of these loans is not proved satisfactorily. Even then the appellant has failed to submit any evidence for explaining the financial capacity of the creditors/ loan providers neither did he provi paid on these loans nor could justify the nature of the amount named unsecured loans. It is noted that during the appeal proceedings, vide letter dated 08.12.2023, the appellant was specifically asked to give details of so creditors, also the details of TDS deducted and deposited in Govt. account on the interest payments to these creditors were called for. The appellant was asked to furnish these details on the basis of its TDS return and the bank acc ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 under Section 68, observing that the lenders were bereft of financial capacity, that the transactions were devoid of any commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Principal CIT (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. Appeal No. 2463 of 2019, dated 05.03.2019], wherein the apex court reiterated that the onus lies squarely upon the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is under: However, on perusal of the evidences detailed above, it is observed that the income in ROI showed by these Loan providers is much less in comparison to the amount of loan provided by them. It raises a concern as to how a person can afford to lend the significant huge amount of his income unless it is the business of the person to lend the money. However, on perusal of confirmation of these accounts, submitted by the appellant, it is observed that no interest was paid on these loans. Therefore, it further raises a genuine concern as to why any person would provide loan of significant amount in comparison to his/her income that too without charging any interest. Thus, the appellant has failed to justify the creditworthiness and financial capacity of the creditor and the motive of the loan providers. Even the genuineness of these loans is not proved satisfactorily. Even then the appellant has failed to submit any evidence for explaining the financial capacity of the creditors/ loan providers neither did he provide any details regarding interest paid on these loans nor could justify the nature of the amount named unsecured loans. It is noted that during the appeal proceedings, vide letter dated 08.12.2023, the appellant was specifically asked to give details of source of income of these creditors, also the details of TDS deducted and deposited in Govt. account on the interest payments to these creditors were called for. The appellant was asked to furnish these details on the basis of its TDS return and the bank account statement Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 7 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 under Section 68, observing that the lenders were ns were devoid of any commercial rationale, and that no interest had been paid thereon. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [Civil 3.2019], wherein the apex court reiterated that the onus lies squarely upon the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is However, on perusal of the evidences detailed above, it is observed that the income in ROI showed by these Loan providers is much less in comparison to the amount of loan provided by them. It raises a concern as to how a person can ficant huge amount of his income unless it is the business of the person to lend the money. However, on perusal of confirmation of these accounts, submitted by the appellant, it is observed that no interest was paid on these ises a genuine concern as to why any person would provide loan of significant amount in comparison to his/her income that too without charging any interest. Thus, the appellant has failed to justify the or and the motive of the loan providers. Even the genuineness of these Even then the appellant has failed to submit any evidence for explaining the financial capacity of the creditors/ loan de any details regarding interest paid on these loans nor could justify the nature of the amount named unsecured loans. It is noted that during the appeal proceedings, vide letter dated 08.12.2023, the appellant was urce of income of these creditors, also the details of TDS deducted and deposited in Govt. account on the interest payments to these creditors were called for. The appellant was asked to furnish these details on ount statement Printed from counselvise.com reflecting the payment of interest to these parties. The appellant has failed to provide any of these details called for during the appeal proceedings. Thus, the onus of proof has not been discharged by the appellant. Under section 68, it is primary onus of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction with the cash creditors claimed by him. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove satisfactorily the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors. 5.4 Further observations related to parties are as under: i. D.K. Enterprises: The Audit Report classified it as unsecured loan. Now the amount received as loan has been claimed as Sale Agreement receip Tax Auditor. Genuineness not proved. ii Harlalka Traders Pvt. Ltd. The appellant himself is disputing the amount mentioned in the ledger account of the party in his books. Further, the ITR reflects income of Rs. 1, not sufficient to explain the creditworthiness. iii. Hum Developers Pvt. Ltd.: The ITR reflects Nil income. No interest has been paid to the creditor. Creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. iv. J. Tex: No interest payments to the indivi v. Kishor Vishnu Bhoir: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. vi. Kishor Vishnu Bhoir HUF: No interest payment to this HUF. The bank account the account appears to be a conduit. The Karta has separately given loan. No source of income given. nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. vii. Mayur Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest payment to this individual. The bank very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No so income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved.DIME ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 reflecting the payment of interest to these parties. The appellant has failed to provide any of these details called for during the appeal proceedings. Thus, the onus of proof has not been discharged by the appellant. Under section 68, it is primary onus of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction with the cash creditors claimed by him. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove satisfactorily the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of these parties/ 5.4 Further observations related to parties are as under: i. D.K. Enterprises: The Audit Report classified it as unsecured loan. Now the amount received as loan has been claimed as Sale Agreement receipt. No clarification is on record from the Tax Auditor. Genuineness not proved. ii Harlalka Traders Pvt. Ltd. The appellant himself is disputing the amount mentioned in the ledger account of the party in his books. Further, the ITR reflects income of Rs. 1,06,930/ not sufficient to explain the creditworthiness. iii. Hum Developers Pvt. Ltd.: The ITR reflects Nil income. No interest has been paid to the creditor. Creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. iv. J. Tex: No interest payments to the individual. No ITR filed. v. Kishor Vishnu Bhoir: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The thiness and genuineness not proved. vi. Kishor Vishnu Bhoir HUF: No interest payment to this HUF. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. The Karta has separately given loan. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not vii. Mayur Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No so income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved.DIME Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 8 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 reflecting the payment of interest to these parties. The appellant has failed to provide any of these details called for during the appeal proceedings. Thus, the onus of proof has not been discharged by the appellant. Under section 68, it is primary onus of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction with the cash creditors claimed by him. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove satisfactorily the creditworthiness and transactions in respect of these parties/ 5.4 Further observations related to parties are as under: i. D.K. Enterprises: The Audit Report classified it as unsecured loan. Now the amount received as loan has been claimed as t. No clarification is on record from the ii Harlalka Traders Pvt. Ltd. The appellant himself is disputing the amount mentioned in the ledger account of the party in his 06,930/- only iii. Hum Developers Pvt. Ltd.: The ITR reflects Nil income. No interest has been paid to the creditor. Creditworthiness and dual. No ITR filed. v. Kishor Vishnu Bhoir: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The vi. Kishor Vishnu Bhoir HUF: No interest payment to this HUF. balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. The Karta has separately The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not vii. Mayur Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest payment to this account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The Printed from counselvise.com viii. Meena Manish Shah: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears t income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. ix. Panbai Tokershi Dedha: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and th income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. x. Pooja Uday Naik: No interest payment to this individual who is the daughter of the assessee. The bank acc show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. No ITR filed. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xi. Pravin Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest payment to this individual. The bank accou very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xii. Priya Ratanshi Vora: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xiii. Rashmi Dinesh Patil: No bank account g appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xiv. Sameer Malik: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xv. Sequera Fabrics: No int source of income given. No ITR furnished. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xvi. Sunny Sanjay Dhangar: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 viii. Meena Manish Shah: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. ix. Panbai Tokershi Dedha: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. x. Pooja Uday Naik: No interest payment to this individual who is the daughter of the assessee. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. No ITR filed. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xi. Pravin Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xii. Priya Ratanshi Vora: No interest payment to this al. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xiii. Rashmi Dinesh Patil: No bank account given. the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xiv. Sameer Malik: No interest payment to this individual. The ccount balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xv. Sequera Fabrics: No interest payment to this individual. No source of income given. No ITR furnished. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xvi. Sunny Sanjay Dhangar: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 9 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 viii. Meena Manish Shah: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are o be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The ix. Panbai Tokershi Dedha: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are e account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The x. Pooja Uday Naik: No interest payment to this individual who ount balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. No ITR filed. The xi. Pravin Gangadhar Mhatre: No interest payment to this nt balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The xii. Priya Ratanshi Vora: No interest payment to this al. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income. The iven. the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. xiv. Sameer Malik: No interest payment to this individual. The ccount balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. erest payment to this individual. No source of income given. No ITR furnished. The creditworthiness xvi. Sunny Sanjay Dhangar: No interest payment to this individual. The bank account balances show that they are account appears to be a conduit. No source of Printed from counselvise.com income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not not proved. xvii. Yasshodip Naik: No interest payment to this individual. The amount o account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthin xviii. Yogita Niloba Naik: No interest payment to this individual. No source of income given. The genuineness not proved. xix. Rajendra Sharma: No interest payment to this individual. No source of income given. The genuinene xx. Arif Lalani: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than 55 Lacs. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxi. Bhakti U Naik: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than 94 Lacs. The bank account balances show appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives Nil income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxii. Chhabra Associates: No interest payment to th No ITR furnished. No source of income given. The explanation furnished by the appellant in his reply dated 12.12.2023 is not matching with its ledger accounts and Tax Auditor's Report. The amount of loan is not reflecting as an opening balance. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxiii. Dinesh H. Patil: No interest payment to this creditor. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not xxiv. Asanjo Amber: The assessee has only submitted death certificate. No other details submitted. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not not proved. xvii. Yasshodip Naik: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than one crore. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xviii. Yogita Niloba Naik: No interest payment to this individual. No source of income given. The genuineness not xix. Rajendra Sharma: No interest payment to this individual. No source of income given. The genuineness not proved. xx. Arif Lalani: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than 55 Lacs. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR es a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxi. Bhakti U Naik: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than 94 Lacs. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives Nil income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxii. Chhabra Associates: No interest payment to this creditor. No ITR furnished. No source of income given. The explanation furnished by the appellant in his reply dated 12.12.2023 is not matching with its ledger accounts and Tax Auditor's Report. The amount of loan is not reflecting as an opening . The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxiii. Dinesh H. Patil: No interest payment to this creditor. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxiv. Asanjo Amber: The assessee has only submitted death certificate. No other details submitted. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 10 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan amount. The creditworthiness and xvii. Yasshodip Naik: No interest payment to this individual. f credit balance is more than one crore. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance ess and genuineness not proved. xviii. Yogita Niloba Naik: No interest payment to this individual. No source of income given. The genuineness not xix. Rajendra Sharma: No interest payment to this individual. ss not proved. xx. Arif Lalani: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than 55 Lacs. The bank account balances show that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR es a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxi. Bhakti U Naik: No interest payment to this individual. The amount of credit balance is more than 94 Lacs. The bank that they are very low and the account appears to be a conduit. No source of income given. The ITR gives Nil income as compared to the loan balance amount. The is creditor. No ITR furnished. No source of income given. The explanation furnished by the appellant in his reply dated 12.12.2023 is not matching with its ledger accounts and Tax Auditor's Report. The amount of loan is not reflecting as an opening . The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxiii. Dinesh H. Patil: No interest payment to this creditor. No source of income given. The ITR gives a very nominal income as compared to the loan balance amount. The creditworthiness xxiv. Asanjo Amber: The assessee has only submitted death certificate. No other details submitted. The creditworthiness Printed from counselvise.com xxv. Adilon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the ass and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxvi. Anjali S. Malik: No confirmation of account furnished. No bank statement provided. No interest payment reflected. The creditworthiness and ge xxv. Gautam Silk Mills: No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxvi. Osaka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.: N furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxvii. Rahul Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd.: No confirmation of account furnished. The serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxviii. Roshan Maloo: No documents furnished. No confirmation of account. The identity creditworthiness and genuineness no Considering the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain / justify with documentary evidence, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of all Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 4,18,82,630/ 5.5 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income (Central)-1 v.NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. in CIVIL APP 2463 OF 2019 on MARCH 5, 2019 the Hon'ble Soupreme Court held that:  \"As per settled law, the onus is on the assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the investors under section 68.  The ass of the Assessing Officer: ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 xxv. Adilon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxvi. Anjali S. Malik: No confirmation of account furnished. No bank statement provided. No interest payment reflected. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxv. Gautam Silk Mills: No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxvi. Osaka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.: No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxvii. Rahul Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd.: No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. xxviii. Roshan Maloo: No documents furnished. No confirmation of account. The identity creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. Considering the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain / justify with documentary evidence, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of all the creditors discussed above. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 4,18,82,630/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 5.5 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income 1 v.NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2019 on MARCH 5, 2019 the Hon'ble Soupreme Court \"As per settled law, the onus is on the assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the investors under section 68. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer: Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 11 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 xxv. Adilon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. No confirmation of account essee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness xxvi. Anjali S. Malik: No confirmation of account furnished. No bank statement provided. No interest payment reflected. The xxv. Gautam Silk Mills: No confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness and o confirmation of account furnished. The letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The creditworthiness xxvii. Rahul Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd.: No confirmation of letter issued by the assessee is self serving and not acknowledged by the creditor. The xxviii. Roshan Maloo: No documents furnished. No confirmation of account. The identity creditworthiness and Considering the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain / justify with documentary evidence, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in the creditors discussed above. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 5.5 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 1 v.NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2019 on MARCH 5, 2019 the Hon'ble Soupreme Court \"As per settled law, the onus is on the assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the investors under essee is expected to establish to the satisfaction Printed from counselvise.com  Proof of identity of the creditors;  Capacity of creditors to advance money; and  Genuineness of transaction\" With respect to the issue of genuineness of transaction, it is for the assessee to prove by cogent and credible evidence, that the investments made in share capital are genuine borrowings, since the facts are exclusively within the assessee's knowledge. Merely, proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus capacity or credit In the case of C.V Ravi v. Income held that said loan received by assessee was bogus and, accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income assesse. High Court also held that since assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said alleged creditor ARC or produce its owner in person for cross failed to establish identity of creditor and genuineness of alleged loan transaction, impugned additions under section 68 was justified and The Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA * in SLP TO APPEAL (C) NO (S). 11083 OF 2021 ON JULY 26, 2021 DISMISSED THE SAID SLP AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE High court in the ABOVE CASE. In view of the above, the grounds of appeal of the appellant regarding addition 4.2 The assessee is in appeal against sustaining of the addition. 4.3 In regard to the squared partial relief, sustaining the addition only to the extent of in the case of Pooja Uday Naik said deletion whereas the assessee is in appeal as sustaining the disallowance in respect of Pooja Udai Naik. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5.6 Addition u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,769/ the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 Proof of identity of the creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction\" With respect to the issue of genuineness of transaction, it is for assessee to prove by cogent and credible evidence, that the investments made in share capital are genuine borrowings, since the facts are exclusively within the assessee's knowledge. Merely, proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity or credit-worthiness has not been established.\" In the case of C.V Ravi v. Income-tax Officer Assessing Officer held that said loan received by assessee was bogus and, accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income assesse. High Court also held that since assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said alleged creditor ARC or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and genuineness of an transaction, impugned additions under section 68 was justified and The Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA * in SLP TO APPEAL (C) NO (S). 11083 OF 2021 ON JULY 26, 2021 DISMISSED THE SAID SLP AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE High court in the ABOVE CASE. the above, the grounds of appeal of the appellant addition of Rs.41,18,82630/- are dismissed.” The assessee is in appeal against sustaining of the In regard to the squared-off loans, the Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief, sustaining the addition only to the extent of Pooja Uday Naik. The Revenue is in appeal against the said deletion whereas the assessee is in appeal as sustaining the disallowance in respect of Pooja Udai Naik. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.6 Addition u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,769/-: I have gone through the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 12 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 With respect to the issue of genuineness of transaction, it is for assessee to prove by cogent and credible evidence, that the investments made in share capital are genuine borrowings, since the facts are exclusively within the assessee's knowledge. Merely, proving the identity of the of the assessee, if the worthiness has not been established.\" tax Officer Assessing Officer held that said loan received by assessee was bogus and, accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income of assesse. High Court also held that since assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said alleged creditor ARC or examination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and genuineness of an transaction, impugned additions under section 68 was justified and The Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA * in SLP TO APPEAL (C) NO (S). 11083 OF 2021 ON JULY 26, 2021 DISMISSED THE SAID SLP AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE the above, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.” The assessee is in appeal against sustaining of the above off loans, the Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief, sustaining the addition only to the extent of ₹20,000/– The Revenue is in appeal against the said deletion whereas the assessee is in appeal as against sustaining the disallowance in respect of Pooja Udai Naik. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: : I have gone through the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and Printed from counselvise.com remand report in this case. After scrutinizing the evidences and considering the Remand Report, I have found the claim in ground no. 2 pertaining to addition u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,769/ appellant is allowable in the case except in the Pooja Udai Naik. In case of Pooja Udai Naik, as per the remand report the appellant has stated that the premium paid by the appellant himself towards the policy of his daughter Pooja Udai Naik and also the maturity amount had been received by the appellant himself. Such m appellant by the virtue of section 60. Therefore, the maturity amount cannot be treated as loan and eventually the payment cannot be allowed as repayment. In the view of the above, out of 8,42,94,769/ is disallowed.” 4.4 As to the alleged agricultural income, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, holding that the assessee had produced neither evidence of ownership nor proof of cultivation or sale, and thus claim was wholly unsubstantiated. disallowance observing as under : “6.2 During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding this agricultural income. The appellant submitted tables f expenditure calculation and some evidence expenditure from agricultural but did not any evidence establishing receipt of agricultural income. As described above that the appellant had shown agricultural income in his return the addition was m of evidences wherein in the remand report the recommendation are associated with the cash credit. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to be correct on the facts and has not applied his mind at all. Further, it is mentioned the appellant has also stated them as loan taken. This reflects the contradictions in the nature of money which is shown as agricultural in ROI and loan taken in remand report. The appellant has merely submitted two purchase bills expenses to justify the agricultural income. No details of the land records in his ownership, the status of irrigation in the land, the details of crop production certified by the Govt. Authorities has ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 and report in this case. After scrutinizing the evidences and considering the Remand Report, I have found the claim in ground no. 2 pertaining to addition u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,769/ appellant is allowable in the case except in the Pooja Udai Naik. In case of Pooja Udai Naik, as per the remand report the appellant has stated that the premium paid by the appellant himself towards the policy of his daughter Pooja Udai Naik and also the maturity amount had been received by the appellant himself. Such maturity amount shall be the deemed income of the appellant by the virtue of section 60. Therefore, the maturity amount cannot be treated as loan and eventually the payment cannot be allowed as repayment. In the view of the above, out of 8,42,94,769/- Rs. 8,42,74,769/- is allowed remaining 20,000 disallowed.” As to the alleged agricultural income, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, holding that the assessee had produced neither evidence of ownership nor proof of cultivation or sale, and thus claim was wholly unsubstantiated. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under : 6.2 During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding this agricultural income. The appellant submitted tables for income and expenditure calculation and some evidence expenditure from agricultural but did not any evidence establishing receipt of agricultural income. As described above that the appellant had shown agricultural income in his return the addition was made due to non of evidences wherein in the remand report the recommendation are associated with the cash credit. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to be correct on the facts and has not applied his mind at all. Further, it is mentioned in the remand report that the appellant has also stated them as loan taken. This reflects the contradictions in the nature of money which is shown as agricultural in ROI and loan taken in remand report. The appellant has merely submitted two purchase bills expenses to justify the agricultural income. No details of the land records in his ownership, the status of irrigation in the land, the details of crop production certified by the Govt. Authorities has Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 13 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 and report in this case. After scrutinizing the evidences and considering the Remand Report, I have found the claim in ground no. 2 pertaining to addition u/s 69C of Rs. 8,42,94,769/- of the appellant is allowable in the case except in the Pooja Udai Naik. In case of Pooja Udai Naik, as per the remand report the appellant has stated that the premium paid by the appellant himself towards the policy of his daughter Pooja Udai Naik and also the maturity amount had been received by the appellant aturity amount shall be the deemed income of the appellant by the virtue of section 60. Therefore, the maturity amount cannot be treated as loan and eventually the payment cannot be allowed as repayment. In the view of the above, out of is allowed remaining 20,000/- As to the alleged agricultural income, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, holding that the assessee had produced neither evidence of ownership nor proof of cultivation or sale, and thus the The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the 6.2 During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding this agricultural or income and expenditure calculation and some evidence expenditure from agricultural but did not any evidence establishing receipt of As described above that the appellant had shown agricultural ade due to non-providing of evidences wherein in the remand report the recommendation are associated with the cash credit. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to be correct on the facts and has not applied in the remand report that the appellant has also stated them as loan taken. This reflects the contradictions in the nature of money which is shown as The appellant has merely submitted two purchase bills related to expenses to justify the agricultural income. No details of the land records in his ownership, the status of irrigation in the land, the details of crop production certified by the Govt. Authorities has Printed from counselvise.com not been submitted. Therefore, the claim i appellant submits that he has made sales to the street vendors and therefore, no documentary proof is available in the unorganized market. No details of transportation, labour etc. or the persons making payments, mode of payment re been submitted. The sale proceeds of Rs. 20,68,736/ claimed exempt and the explanation is not acceptable. It is the onus of the assessee to prove that the income has actually been earned and that it falls into exempt category. This onus has been discharged. It is further noted that principle of res judicata does not apply to the Income Tax proceedings. Every assessment year is new and facts are to be ascertained for each year. In view of the above facts, the addition of Rs. 20,68,736/ the Assessing Officer is confirmed. 4.5 Further, regarding the agriculture expenses amounting to Rs.12,09,809/- the Ld. CIT(A) upheld in view of submitted by the assessee observing as under: “6.3 The assessee has claimed agricultural to 12,09,809/ \"4.5 Further the agricultural expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 12,09,809/ assessee under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. P Act are initiated separately.\" During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding these agricultural expenses. The appellant submitted tables for income and expend calculation and some evidence of expenditure from agricultural out of which only the bill of Rs. 98,570/ had been verified by the Assessing officer in its remand report dated 08.01.2024. In its remand report the Assessing o stated that these two bills are pertaining to the expenses born on agricultural work. However, in this case the appellant was unable to provide any proof of agricultural income therefore, the expense can not be allowed. Also, the bills are self not verifiable. In the view of the above fact and discussion, the ground of appeal No. 3 is dismissed and the addition of Rs. 12,09,809/ made by the Assessing Officer ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 not been submitted. Therefore, the claim is not entertainable. The appellant submits that he has made sales to the street vendors and therefore, no documentary proof is available in the unorganized market. No details of transportation, labour etc. or the persons making payments, mode of payment re been submitted. The sale proceeds of Rs. 20,68,736/ claimed exempt and the explanation is not acceptable. It is the onus of the assessee to prove that the income has actually been earned and that it falls into exempt category. This onus has been discharged. It is further noted that principle of res judicata does not apply to the Income Tax proceedings. Every assessment year is new and facts are to be ascertained for each year. In view of the above facts, the addition of Rs. 20,68,736/ the Assessing Officer is confirmed.” Further, regarding the agriculture expenses amounting to the Ld. CIT(A) upheld in view of submitted by the assessee observing as under: 6.3 The assessee has claimed agricultural expenses amounting to 12,09,809/-. As per assessment order: \"4.5 Further the agricultural expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 12,09,809/- is added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act are initiated separately.\" During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding these agricultural expenses. The appellant submitted tables for income and expend calculation and some evidence of expenditure from agricultural out of which only the bill of Rs. 98,570/- and bill of Rs. 46, 610/ had been verified by the Assessing officer in its remand report dated 08.01.2024. In its remand report the Assessing o stated that these two bills are pertaining to the expenses born on agricultural work. However, in this case the appellant was unable to provide any proof of agricultural income therefore, the expense can not be allowed. Also, the bills are self serving and not verifiable. In the view of the above fact and discussion, the ground of appeal No. 3 is dismissed and the addition of Rs. 12,09,809/ made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed.” Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 14 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 s not entertainable. The appellant submits that he has made sales to the street vendors and therefore, no documentary proof is available in the unorganized market. No details of transportation, labour etc. or the persons making payments, mode of payment received has been submitted. The sale proceeds of Rs. 20,68,736/- are claimed exempt and the explanation is not acceptable. It is the onus of the assessee to prove that the income has actually been earned and that it falls into exempt category. This onus has not been discharged. It is further noted that principle of res judicata does not apply to the Income Tax proceedings. Every assessment year is new and facts are to be ascertained for each year. In view of the above facts, the addition of Rs. 20,68,736/- made by Further, regarding the agriculture expenses amounting to the Ld. CIT(A) upheld in view of no evidence expenses amounting \"4.5 Further the agricultural expenses incurred by the assessee is added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act as unexplained enalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the During the various notices the appellant was asked to submit the evidence/documents regarding these agricultural expenses. The appellant submitted tables for income and expenditure calculation and some evidence of expenditure from agricultural and bill of Rs. 46, 610/- had been verified by the Assessing officer in its remand report dated 08.01.2024. In its remand report the Assessing officer has stated that these two bills are pertaining to the expenses born on agricultural work. However, in this case the appellant was unable to provide any proof of agricultural income therefore, the serving and In the view of the above fact and discussion, the ground of appeal No. 3 is dismissed and the addition of Rs. 12,09,809/- Printed from counselvise.com 5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties an perused the relevant material on record. the Ld. CIT(A) entertained additional evidence in breach of the procedural mandate of Rule 46A trite law that the power to admit additional eviden exercised sparingly and only upon satisfaction of the prescribed conditions, and that the Assessing Officer must be afforded a full and effective opportunity to meet the evidence so adduced. 5.1 We are constrained to observe that the AO, in his exercise, examined the evidences only on a cursory and selective basis, leaving large tracts of the record unverified. Having regard to the magnitude of the transactions and the nature of the sums involved, such a partial inquiry cannot be regarded compliance either with the letter or the spirit of the law. 5.2 It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. reaffirmed in NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra) proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast upon the assessee. It is incumbent upon the assessee to discharge this onus by producing unimpeachable evidence establishing the identity of the creditor, the financi and the genuineness of the transaction. Mere furnishing of confirmations or copies of returns does not suffice; the test of credibility must be satisfied by independent corroboration. ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 We have considered the rival submissions of the parties an perused the relevant material on record. It is manifestly evident that the Ld. CIT(A) entertained additional evidence in breach of the procedural mandate of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 trite law that the power to admit additional eviden exercised sparingly and only upon satisfaction of the prescribed conditions, and that the Assessing Officer must be afforded a full and effective opportunity to meet the evidence so adduced. We are constrained to observe that the AO, in his exercise, examined the evidences only on a cursory and selective basis, leaving large tracts of the record unverified. Having regard to the magnitude of the transactions and the nature of the sums involved, such a partial inquiry cannot be regarded compliance either with the letter or the spirit of the law. It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] and NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), that the burden of proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast upon the assessee. It is incumbent upon the assessee to discharge this onus by producing unimpeachable evidence establishing the identity of the creditor, the financial capacity to advance the loan, and the genuineness of the transaction. Mere furnishing of confirmations or copies of returns does not suffice; the test of credibility must be satisfied by independent corroboration. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 15 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and It is manifestly evident that the Ld. CIT(A) entertained additional evidence in breach of the tax Rules, 1962. It is trite law that the power to admit additional evidence must be exercised sparingly and only upon satisfaction of the prescribed conditions, and that the Assessing Officer must be afforded a full and effective opportunity to meet the evidence so adduced. We are constrained to observe that the AO, in his remand exercise, examined the evidences only on a cursory and selective basis, leaving large tracts of the record unverified. Having regard to the magnitude of the transactions and the nature of the sums involved, such a partial inquiry cannot be regarded as adequate compliance either with the letter or the spirit of the law. It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] and , that the burden of proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast upon the assessee. It is incumbent upon the assessee to discharge this onus by producing unimpeachable evidence establishing the al capacity to advance the loan, and the genuineness of the transaction. Mere furnishing of confirmations or copies of returns does not suffice; the test of credibility must be satisfied by independent corroboration. Printed from counselvise.com 5.3 In the present case, the assessee’s statutory standard, while the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to partly affirm and partly delete the additions on a foundation that is factually incomplete and procedurally infirm. We are therefore persuaded to hold that the ends of s served if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for adjudication, upon comprehensive verification of each loan transaction. 5.4 Accordingly, the impugned findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the additions made under AO is directed to examine the matter afresh, after affording due opportunity to the assessee to adduce all relevant material in support of his contentions. 6. As regards the claim of agricultural income and expen assessee has failed to produce primary evidence such as landholding records, details of cultivation, or sale proceeds or proof of expenses incurred, therefore we restore the issues related to agriculture income and expenses also to the file of ld deciding afresh. It shall, however, be open to the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing credible evidence before the AO, who shall decide the same in accordance with law and on the basis of facts duly verified. ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 In the present case, the assessee’s evidences fall short of the statutory standard, while the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to partly affirm and partly delete the additions on a foundation that is factually incomplete and procedurally infirm. We are therefore persuaded to hold that the ends of substantial justice would best be served if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for adjudication, upon comprehensive verification of each loan Accordingly, the impugned findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C are set aside, and the AO is directed to examine the matter afresh, after affording due opportunity to the assessee to adduce all relevant material in support of his contentions. As regards the claim of agricultural income and expen assessee has failed to produce primary evidence such as landholding records, details of cultivation, or sale proceeds or proof of expenses incurred, therefore we restore the issues related to agriculture income and expenses also to the file of ld deciding afresh. It shall, however, be open to the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing credible evidence before the AO, who shall decide the same in accordance with law and on the basis of facts duly verified. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 16 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 evidences fall short of the statutory standard, while the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to partly affirm and partly delete the additions on a foundation that is factually incomplete and procedurally infirm. We are therefore ubstantial justice would best be served if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, upon comprehensive verification of each loan Accordingly, the impugned findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the Sections 68 and 69C are set aside, and the AO is directed to examine the matter afresh, after affording due opportunity to the assessee to adduce all relevant material in As regards the claim of agricultural income and expenses , the assessee has failed to produce primary evidence such as landholding records, details of cultivation, or sale proceeds or proof of expenses incurred, therefore we restore the issues related to agriculture income and expenses also to the file of ld AO for deciding afresh. It shall, however, be open to the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing credible evidence before the AO, who shall decide the same in accordance with law and on the Printed from counselvise.com 7. Accordingly, all the gr well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. As far as cross concerned, same are (1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Respondent Appellant raises an issue before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai as to whether the DCIT No. 989/Mum/2025 has locus against own finding in the REMAND REPORT. (2) Without prejudice to the & in law, whether Revenue was justified in appealing against its own findings, particularly, when the learned CIT(A) at para 5.6 at page no. 52 has deleted the alleged addition of Rs. 8,42,74,769/ out of the total of After scrutinizing the evidences and considering the Remand Report, I have found the claim in ground 2 pertaining to addition u/s. 69C of Rs.8,42,94,769/ (3) On the facts Revenue could file any appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT as such, particularly, when the Respondent discharged his onus to substantiate the genuineness of the alleged transactions that too adverse finding in the remand proceeding and CIT(A), as well. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law, however, it is prayed that the Revenue's appeal may be dismissed as infructuous & 8.1 In cross-objection ground NO. 1, the assessee has raised the issue that once the Assessing Officer has accepted the loans as genuine in his remand report he file appeal. 8.2 We have heard rival submissions of the parties our opinion, the assessee ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 Accordingly, all the grounds of the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. As far as cross-objections raised by the assessee are concerned, same are reproduced as under: (1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Respondent pellant raises an issue before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai as to whether the DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai who is Appellant in the ITA No. 989/Mum/2025 has locus-standi to file any appeal as such against own finding in the REMAND REPORT. (2) Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances & in law, whether Revenue was justified in appealing against its own findings, particularly, when the learned CIT(A) at para 5.6 at page no. 52 has deleted the alleged addition of Rs. 8,42,74,769/ out of the total of Rs.8,42,94,769/- after the categorical finding \" After scrutinizing the evidences and considering the Remand Report, I have found the claim in ground 2 pertaining to addition u/s. 69C of Rs.8,42,94,769/- of the appellant is allowable....\". (3) On the facts and circumstances and law, thus, whether the Revenue could file any appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT as such, particularly, when the Respondent-Appellant had completely discharged his onus to substantiate the genuineness of the alleged transactions that too, particularly, when there was no adverse finding in the remand proceeding and CIT(A), as well. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law, however, it is prayed that the Revenue's appeal may be dismissed as & oblige. objection ground NO. 1, the assessee has raised the issue that once the Assessing Officer has accepted the loans as genuine in his remand report he does not have any We have heard rival submissions of the parties assessee has neither followed the due process Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 17 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 ounds of the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. raised by the assessee are (1) On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Respondent- pellant raises an issue before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai as to 42(1)(1), Mumbai who is Appellant in the ITA standi to file any appeal as such above, on the facts and circumstances & in law, whether Revenue was justified in appealing against its own findings, particularly, when the learned CIT(A) at para 5.6 at page no. 52 has deleted the alleged addition of Rs. 8,42,74,769/- after the categorical finding \" After scrutinizing the evidences and considering the Remand Report, I have found the claim in ground 2 pertaining to addition of the appellant is allowable....\". and circumstances and law, thus, whether the Revenue could file any appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT as such, Appellant had completely discharged his onus to substantiate the genuineness of the , particularly, when there was no adverse finding in the remand proceeding and CIT(A), as well. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in law, however, it is prayed that the Revenue's appeal may be dismissed as objection ground NO. 1, the assessee has raised the issue that once the Assessing Officer has accepted the loans as does not have any locus standi to We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue. In has neither followed the due process Printed from counselvise.com under Rule 46A of the Rules examined all the evidences properly and left the matter only to the wisdom of the ld assessee, contending that the AO having accepted certain transactions in remand was thereby precluded from filing an appeal, are devoid of merit. The remand proceedings were merely exploratory and did not culminate in any binding or conclusive finding. The statutory right of appeal conferred upon the Revenue cannot be abridged on the strength of an interim administrative report. In view of our decision remitting the entire matter to the AO for de novo examination, the cross become purely academic and 9. In the result, the cross are allowed for statistical purposes whereas cross assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 under Rule 46A of the Rules nor the Assessing Officer has all the evidences properly and left the matter only to the CIT(A). The cross-objections rais assessee, contending that the AO having accepted certain transactions in remand was thereby precluded from filing an appeal, are devoid of merit. The remand proceedings were merely exploratory and did not culminate in any binding or conclusive nding. The statutory right of appeal conferred upon the Revenue cannot be abridged on the strength of an interim administrative In view of our decision remitting the entire matter to the AO examination, the cross-objections of the asses become purely academic and are accordingly dismissed. In the result, the cross-appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes whereas cross-objection dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/10/2025. - Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 18 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 the Assessing Officer has all the evidences properly and left the matter only to the objections raised by the assessee, contending that the AO having accepted certain transactions in remand was thereby precluded from filing an appeal, are devoid of merit. The remand proceedings were merely exploratory and did not culminate in any binding or conclusive nding. The statutory right of appeal conferred upon the Revenue cannot be abridged on the strength of an interim administrative In view of our decision remitting the entire matter to the AO objections of the assessee have dismissed. appeals of the assessee and Revenue objections of the /10/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 989, 1098 & CO No. 73 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik 19 , 1098 & CO No. 73/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "