DCIT,CIRCLE-34(1), DELHI vs. MUKEAH KUMAR SINGLA, DELHI

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/-.

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 ITA No. 2225/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2016-17] 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.

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 ITA No. 2225/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2016-17] 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2225/DEL/2023 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2025. [MADHUMITA ROY]