DCIT,CIRCLE-34(1), DELHI vs. MUKEAH KUMAR SINGLA, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and restricted the addition under Section 68 to Rs. 2,44,461/- for one specific loan where documentation was missing. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the onus for other loans.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,36,06,455/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68 and Rs. 24,34,157/- for unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The assessee provided additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was not responded to by the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the unsecured loans and expenditures were adequately explained by the assessee, and if the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and granting partial relief.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 05.06.2023 for A.Y 2016-17.
Page 1 of 7 [A.Y. 2016-17] Amit Behal Vs. ACIT
2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:
“1 The Ld. AO has erred in law in treating the un secured loans of Rs. 43606455 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act of the appellant arbitrarily, illegally and without any basis
The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that Rs. 2434157 was paid by the appellant as Interest on Loan taken by the assessee for his business profession and the due TDS was also deducted and deposited under the provisions of the I.T Act.”
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of rock salt as well as black salt. The assessee also trades in share and commodity. The income of the assessee constitutes income from salary, house property and income from business. The assessee electronically filed his return declaring total income at Rs. 35,35,180/- on 18.11.2016. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was completed on 22.12.2018 at an assessed income of Rs.4,95,75,792/-.
Page 2 of 7 [A.Y. 2016-17] Amit Behal Vs. ACIT
The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 4,36,06,455/- on unsecured loans and unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] amounting to Rs. 24,34,157/- on the ground that all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act, namely identity, genuineness of transactions and credit worthiness of the parties have not been explained satisfactorily.
Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and furnished additional evidences in support of the unsecured loan, which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his perusal and remarks.
The Assessing Officer failed to submit the desired report even after two months. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, admitted the additional evidences and adjudicated the issues before him giving relief to the assessee. It would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which read as under:
“7. The assessment order and the submission made by the appellant were carefully examined and perused. It is observed that the AO made addition u/s 68 without mentioning the details of lenders in Page 3 of 7 [A.Y. 2016-17] Amit Behal Vs. ACIT which the confirmations, ledger accounts and bank accounts were not received. The AO made a general statement stating that "Further, he has submitted some copy of confirmations of unsecured loans taken from persons. He has not submitted any other details like copy of income tax return, copy of ledger account, copy of loans agreements and bank statements of the person to justify/substantiate the creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the persons from whom he has taken unsecured loans during the year." Since the AO had made only a sweeping statement and had not mentioned any details of the addition, the AO was asked twice during appeal proceedings to comment upon the submissions made by the appellant by drawing his attention to the detailed list of creditors along with the attendant documents like confirmations, ledger accounts copies, ITRs bank statements, etc. However there is no response from the AO.
After going through the submissions of the appellant it is observed that the appellant had discharged his onus u/s 68 and u/s 69C of the IT Act by submitting the necessary documents to justify the creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of 37 lenders mentioned in the table in para 5, except in the case of Sh. Sachin Kumar Aggarwal (SI. No. 33) where the confirmation and bank account details were not provided for the loan received amounting to Rs. 2,44,461/-. Accordingly, the addition u/s 68 can be sustained only to The extent of Rs. 2,44,461/-.
Page 4 of 7 [A.Y. 2016-17] Amit Behal Vs. ACIT
Hence, the appeal is being partly allowed restricting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 to Rs. 2,44,461/- pertaining to the alleged loan received from Sh. Sachin Kumar Aggarwal.
None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee. So we heard the ld. DR at length.
Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and read the relevant part of the assessment order. It is the say of the ld. DR that the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the submissions of the assessee without any justification.
We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had forwarded the additional evidences in support of the loans to the Assessing Officer for examination and adjudication. However, the same was not conducted by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, agree with the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has furnished the necessary documents and discharged the onus cast upon him. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving relief to the Page 5 of 7 [A.Y. 2016-17] Amit Behal Vs. ACIT assessee. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2025.
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 →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
