INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

ITO, Vs. M/s. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAJFN0187A Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1. The appeal in ITA No.188/Del/2025 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/10683485170 dated 04.09.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-32(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2. At the outset, we find that the appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 10 days. Considering the reasons adduced by the revenue in the condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication.

3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act in the sum of ₹7,86,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee firm had raised unsecured loans aggregating to ₹7.86 crores from the following parties as under: –

Name, address Loan Interest Repaid TDS Closing PAN of the loanees Amount Credited During the (Rs.) Balance received (Rs.) year (Rs) (Rs.)

(Rs.)

Sh. Chander 20,00,00 20,00,000 Kishore Dhingra 0 K-1998 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi PAN: AAJPD8728P Shri Sunil Gupta 25,00,00 25,00,000 W-137 Greater 0 Kailash, New Delhi. PAN:

AAEPG4792K Sh Parmod Khanna 50,00,00 80,137 5072123 8014 (since deceased), 0 Krishanapura House, Panipat-

132103, PAN: AHGPK8420P Smt Reeta Khanna 49,00,00 6,444 49,05,799 Wife of Late Sh 0 Parmod Khanna, Krishanapura House Panipat-

132103PAN: AJBPK8396D Sh Rajeev Khanna 4,500,00 45,370 4,540,833 4,537 Krishanapura 0 House, Panipat-

132103 PAN: ACEPK8837H Smt Neeru Khanna 4,600,00 6,805 681 4,606,124 Wife of Sh Rajeev 0 Khanna, Krishanapura House Panipat-

5. The ld AO sought to examine the veracity of the loans and directed the assessee to prove the 3 ingredients of Section 68 of the Act i.e. identity of the lenders, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee furnished all the relevant details before the ld AO. Later on the ld AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the lenders which stood duly served. The replies were also directly furnished by the parties before the ld AO in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. But the ld AO observed that the replies were posted from same Post Office, they were in same handwriting and colour of the envelope were also same. The ld AO also noted that some of the parties were residing in Mumbai but replies were filed by persons from Delhi. The ld AO also issued commission u/s 131(1)(d) to Kolkata Investigation Wing who made enquiries with some of the lender companies. The Kolkata Investigation Wing suggested that the lender company had admitted that they were providing accommodation entries.

6. The ld AO proceeded to treat the entire unsecured loans received from the parties in total sum of ₹7.86 crores as unexplained cash credit on the following grounds:-

“Sh Chander Kishore Dhingra Assessing Officer made the addition of loan received from Mr. Dhingra since the burden of proof u/s 68 of the Act is upon the assessee and the conditions of section 68 were not satisfied.

The assessee submitted ITR, confirmation and bank statement in suppo