Loading judgment…

Asha Gupta, New Delhi vs ACIT | s.68 | ITAT Delhi 2025 | BharatTax

ASHA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-60(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6034/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 40 lacs made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed this was a loan from M/s. MA Enterprises, in which the assessee was a partner, to SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd., which was subsequently returned by mistake.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had merely reproduced the AO's order without giving independent findings. The Tribunal found that the AO did not have adequate opportunities to examine the facts and decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

Whether the addition of Rs. 40 lacs under Section 68 was justified without proper examination of the genuineness and sources of the loan by the lower authorities.

Sections Cited

68, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
624 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Hearing: 23/06/2025Pronounced: 27/06/2025

O R D E R

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

1.

This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the "(Ld. CIT(A)"] dated 17.07.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The word Act hereinafter in this order shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The only issue emanating from the grounds of appeal raised by the 2. Assessee is regarding an addition of Rs. 40 lacs made by the ld AO u/s 68 of the Act. The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld AO has made the impugned addition on the premises of insufficient compliance by the Assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The ld counsel submitted that during the year under consideration one M/s. MA Enterprises, in which Assessee is a partner had given a loan of Rs. 40 lacs to an entity called SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. Apropos to para 4.7 of the assessment order this fact was confirmed before the ld AO by Shri Vijay Kumar Garg, Director of said SVJ Developers. Subsequently, by mistake the loan was returned to the Assessee. This issue was explained to the ld AO during the assessment proceedings, however, the same was not accepted by the ld AO and he proceeded to make the impugned addition. The ld counsel further submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not given any considered finding on the issue and as evident from pages 16 to 20 of the appellate order, he has merely reproduced the assessment order and confirmed AO’s findings. The ld counsel provided us detailed paper book in support of its contentions about the genuineness of the loan and the movement of funds between SVJ Developers, MA Enterprises-the firm and the Assessee. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to the ld AO for reconsideration of the whole issue and afresh adjudication. Per contra the ld DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities.

3.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of the materials 4. available on the record. We have noted that the ld CIT(A) has indeed merely reproduced the assessment order of the ld AO and has not given any detailed findings on to the merits of the addition. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter of sources of unsecured loan of Rs. 40 lacs has not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and filed supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possesses the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. Without prejudice it has also been noted that in this case the Ld. AO did not have adequate opportunities to examine the varied facts seminal therein. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the issue of addition qua unsecured loan of Rs. 40 lacs which have been contested by the assessee through its grounds of appeal supra stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order and in accordance with law. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.