IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Inder Solanki, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026

O R D E R

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-03-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 47,94,55,093/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A made by the AO without appreciating the fact that in respect of unsecured loans, the assessee has not furnished the PAN, address, supporting documentary evidence and loan confirmation of the relevant parties to whom the assessee has repaid the loans during the relevant assessment year under consideration.

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.47,94,55,093/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish complete details of regrouping made by the assessee in the ITR for A.Y. 2022-23 along with supporting documentary evidence and loan confirmation of the relevant parties with regard to the reclassification of unsecured loans as "Other Payables" in its books of accounts.

3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 47,94,55,093/- as unexplained money u/s. 694, without appreciating the fact that the onus squarely lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction undertaken during the relevant previous year.

4. The appellant craves leaves to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited liability partnership firm, engaged in the business of real estate development. It filed its return of income declaring its total income as NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the matter relating to high liabilities in Balance Sheet as compared to low income/receipts declared in the ITR and secondly, to examine the substantial amount of loans/advances/investments in shares on the asset side of the Balance Sheet as compared to total income as per the ITR, which is significantly low and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) were thereafter issued from time to time. However, except for one of the notices, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and, thereafter, a show cause was issued on 29-01-2024 and again on 07-02- 2024, there was however, no compliance on the part of the assessee. The AO thereafter, proceeded and passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dt. 29-02-2024.

3. In the assessment order so passed by the AO, he has referred to the opening balance of unsecured loans as on 31-03-2021 at Rs. 62,29,75,941/- and closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31-03-2022 at Rs. 13,82,05,848/- and has held that the difference amounting to Rs. 48,47,70,093/- is the amount which has been repaid by the assessee during the financial year 2021-22 relevant to the impugned assessment year 2022-23. The AO further referred to the increase in advances given by the assessee from Rs. 54,22,97,579/- in the immediately preceding year to Rs. 58,94,80,592/- in the year under consideration and basis the same, held that the assessee cannot take the plea that the advances given by hi