SANKPAL DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-25(1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the loan was transferred via bank transaction and the assessee provided company master data of the lender. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the lender's meagre profit and net worth not corresponding to the loan amount.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared nil income but was found to have received an unsecured loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as an unexplained credit, as the assessee failed to produce the loan party.
What were the issues?
Whether the unsecured loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. constitutes an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the lender's financial standing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM
O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.03.2023 for AY. 2013-14.
The only grievance of the assessee against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.50 Lakhs on account of alleged bogus loan received by the assessee. 3. Brief facts, as noted by the AO is that the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. nil. Later, the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO noted that he received information from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Choudhary, Shri Dharmichand Jain [alleged entry operators] and their group entities are providing accommodation entries inter-alia in the nature of unsecured loans and that assessee is also a beneficiary of such activity. According to the AO, the assessee 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Sankpal Developers had shown to have received unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. Nazar”) which according to AO was operated by these entry operators (supra). So, the AO confronted, the assessee to prove the un-secured loan from M/s. Nazar. Pursuant thereto, assessee filed (i) copy of ITR of M/s. Nazar (ii) confirmation account (iii) bank statement of the loan transaction to prove the nature and source of loan i.e. identity, creditworthiness of genuineness of the transaction. According to the AO, despite the following documents filed, the assessee failed to produce the loan party and based on the information available with him, he was of the opinion that unsecured loan of Rs.50 Lakhs is nothing but accommodation entry from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd. And therefore, he treated the transaction of as un-explained credit and added it u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd has meagre profit of Rs.2,68,202/- and net worth of Rs.14,30,222/- which do not correspond to huge sum of money to lend to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is noted that the assessee has taken loan from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd on 28.03.2013 which facts is discernible from the bank statement of the M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd found placed at page no. 27 of PB which shows that on 28.03.2013 through bank transaction an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs has been transferred to the assessee (M/s. Sankpal Developers). The assessee in order to prove the identity of the lender has filed the 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Sankpal Developers company master data of M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd downloaded from
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026