Ito 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs Kinjal Enterprises , Mumbai on 13 February, 2023
The assesse has claimed that identity of the creditors
have been established on the basis of PAN Card, return of income,
account confirmation, genuineness of the transactions have been
established on the basis of account confirmation and bank statements,
where all the loan were taken by account payee cheques and
creditworthiness of the creditors were established on the basis of
balance sheet and bank statement of the parties. The A.O had not
controverted these material facts with any relevant evidences. In the
appeal the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after following the various
decisions of the courts and Tribunals as elaborated supra in his order.
The ld. CIT(A) has also discussed the decision of the ITAT Mumbai relied
upon by the assesse in the case of M/s Yug Developers Vs. ACIT 17(3),
Mumbai in ITA No. 7130/Mum/2018 dated 17.07.2019 wherein
identical issue was involved in the case with same lenders of the assesse
in respect of M/s Duke Business Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pragati Jain Pvt.
Ltd. which were also common to the case of the assesse. The revenue
could not substantiate how the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue i.e Sumati Dayal and
Durga Prasad More are applicable to the facts of the case of the assesse.
We are of the view that these case laws are distinguishable on the basis
P a g e | 19
2 Appeals
ITO-32(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kinjal Enterprises
of facts and specific material referred in the case of the assesse i.e
confirmation letters, PAN, ITR, bank statements affidavit, repayment of
loan amount etc. as discussed supra in this order including not
providing opportunities of cross examination and retraction of
statements. In the case of the assesee the AO has failed to controvert
the submission of the assesse supported with relevant material as
discussed supra in this order. Therefore, after taking into consideration
the facts and findings as discussed above, we don't find any infirmity in
the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal no. 1 to 3
of the revenue stand dismissed.