ACIT CC 7(4), Mumbai Vs. Aayush Infotech Private Limited

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai, arising out of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The Revenue raised several grounds of appeal against the order of the CIT(A), primarily concerning the deletion of additions made under sections 68 and 69C of the Act. The assessee had raised unsecured loans aggregating to ₹1,57,00,000/- from M/s Rupkar Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rupnarayan Niketan Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer treated these loans as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act based on investigation inputs and third-party statements. The assessee provided extensive documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions, including confirmations from the lenders, financial statements, and bank statements evidencing the disbursement and repayment of loans through banking channels.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 157,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash credit without considering the fact that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or credible evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing officer had correctly invoked section 68 of the Income tax Act.
• 3. Whether the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to the alleged lenders were returned unserved and further, the lenders did not comply with the summons issued by the Investigation Wing.
• 4. Whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in disregarding the categorical statements of Shri Satish Saraf and Shri Vishal Bhuwania recorded during search proceeding.
• 5. Whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,14,000/- made u/s 69C of the Act towards commission expenditure incurred for obtaining accommodation entries.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• ACIT, Circle 23 (2) vs. Signature Global (India) Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• ACIT vs Techno FAC Contracts Private Ltd

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Babulal Mishrimalji Mehta vs Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• M/s. R.M. Bhuther and Co. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• ACIT VS 21ST CENTURY E-SOLUTIONS

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Dismissed

• The ACIT, Circle -7(1), New Delhi Vs M/s. Dayal Steel P. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Dismissed