Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order by the NFAC that sustained additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. The additions pertained to a loan received and sale of property. The assessee claimed the loan was taken in AY 2016-17 and provided evidence for the property sale advance.
Held
The Tribunal held that the loan was received in AY 2016-17, not AY 2015-16, making the addition unsustainable. Regarding the property sale, the amount was shown as an advance received through banking channels, and the assessee had duly accounted for it, thus no addition under Section 69A was warranted.
Key Issues
Whether additions for a loan and property sale advance were sustainable for the assessment year 2015-16 when the transactions pertained to the subsequent year or were duly accounted for as advances.
Sections Cited
69, 250, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J (SMC
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 07.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2015-16.
All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions u/s 69 of the Act.
2 Manglam Enterprises therefore we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.
At the very outset, we noticed that addition of Rs. 12,10,000/- were made u/s 69 of the Act, in this regard, we noticed that one addition is of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the fact that assessee had taken loan. As per the facts of the case during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished all the credible evidences before the AO to establish the case of the assessee on merits with regard to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Apart it was also pointed out that assessee had received loan on 29.04.2015 which falls during the assessment year 2016-17 for running its business activities and in this regard assessee had placed on record the bank statements which are at paper book page No. 5 to 13. Therefore in these circumstances it was pleaded that no addition could be made in the year under consideration.
After having heard the counsels for both the parties, we found that in fact loan was taken during A.Y 2016-17 thus no addition could have been made in the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2015-16 and in this regard we rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Prashant Rameshchandra Samdani Vs. ACIT, in wherein it has been held that 3 Manglam Enterprises ‘the year under consideration AY 2015-16 and hence the addition made in the current year is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance in placed on the the judgement of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Prashant Rameshchandra Samdani v. ACIT vide wherein it was held that "On basis of statement of N, sales head of Sunshine group, that assessee had paid certain sum in cash for purchase of a property from T, assessee's case was reopened and Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that assessee paid on money (difference between agreement value and market value) to builders which was added to income of assessee being unexplained expenditure under section 69C - It was noted that sale consideration paid by assessee was more than market value of said property Whether since assessee's transaction vide sale agreement dated 13-8-2012 did not fall during year under consideration nor assessee had entered into any agreement with Sunshine group, rather purchased property by virtue of agreement entered into with T, reopening was not sustainable in eyes of law being based upon in correct facts.
Therefore considering the above circumstances we direct the AO to delete the addition in the year under consideration.
Other addition of Rs. 6,10,000/- was on account of the fact that assessee had received the said amount from 4 Manglam Enterprises Maya Singh and Gurdeep Singh on account of sale of property bearing Flat No. 101, Gokul Grand 1, Sundaram School Village, Palghar (W), having survey No. 827/3 and the said payment has been made through banking channels against which the assessee had acknowledg the receipt of the payment. In lieu of the said amount the property has been allotted to the said purchaser vide letter of allotment dated 27.10.2024 which is paper book 21 to 22. Since Maya Singh could not pay further therefore final transfer could not take place. Hence the said property has been kept on hold. In these circumstances the said amount is shown as advances in the books of accounts. Hence in our view the amount which has been received by the assessee has been duly accounted for in the books of the assessee therefore no addition could have been made u/s 69A of the Act. Thus we direct the AO to delete the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.