IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1235/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalin Jayantilal Shah Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai

62, Hemgiri, 6th Road, JVPD Scheme, Near Bank of Maharashtra, Vile Parle, West, Vs.

S.O. 400056.

(PAN: AAGPS5573G)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CA Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFSC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072924513(1), dated 05.02.2025 passed against the assessment order by Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not holding the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. A. O. as bad in law as the assessment order is passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the reassessment proceeding was never initiated by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 3,61,57,561/- under section 68 of the Act by treating a genuine loan as accommodation entry without appreciating the fact that the appellant has discharged the onus in proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans received from the various parties.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not holding that the principles of natural justice were violated and disregarding the fact that the appellant was neither provided with copies of material relied upon by the Ld. A.O. nor provided the opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon by the Ld. A.O.

4. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another.”

3. The only issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of addition of unsecured loan amounting to Rs 3,61,57,561/- u/s. 68 by treating it as accommodation entry.

4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 25.03.2014 reporting total income at Rs 8,22,830/-. Ld. Assessing Officer observes that a search and seizure operation was carried out on 03.10.2013 in the case of Bhanvarlal Jain group. Based on information received from DGIT(Inv.), Unit-IX, Mumbai that assessee is one of the beneficiaries who obtained accommodation entries of unsecured loan of Rs 3,61,57,561/- during the year under consideration in respect of the Bhanvarlal Jain group. Case of the assessee was taken up for reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s.148. Ld. Assessing Officer alleged that the companies from whom assessee had taken loans, exist for namesake and are represented by dummy directors/partners, who are all employees of Bhanvarlal Jain group and family. Assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the transactions in respect of unsecured loans recorded by him in his books of accounts. Details of loans taken by the assessee from five different concerns is tabulated below:

4.1. In Para 6, ld. Assessing Officer records the submissions made by the assessee which included confirmation of loans taken, copies of income tax returns, balance sheets with annexures and relevant pages of the bank statements of the lenders, reflecting the loan transactions. According to the assessee, based on these documentary evidences, it was claimed that unsecured loans are genuine.