V.M.V. INDUSTRIES,ALWAR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1051/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 September 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the onus was on the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee failed to discharge this onus before the lower authorities and did not appear before the Tribunal, the addition was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and added Rs. 27,90,000 on account of capital introduction and unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits. The assessee failed to provide necessary details before the CIT(A) and the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits is justified when the assessee fails to provide supporting evidence and appears before the appellate authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Prakash, Accountant Member ITA No: 1051/JPR/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

V M.V Industries ITO, GA 327 (A) MIA, Ward 1(2), Alwar Vs Alwar PAN: AAMFV8535H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 31-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-09-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 29.05.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, arising out of the assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the

I.T.A No. 1051/JPR/2025 Page No 2 VMV Industries

Act”) by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”).

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under:

“1. In this case we have presented all the requisite documents before the CIT(A) dated 22/03/2024 later under Appeal CIT(A) asked for documents to proof Amount of Rs 27,90,000 arrived through Capital Introduction by one of the partner of Rs 13,50,000/- and Unsecured Loan Balance Amount of Rs 14,40,000/-. In response to all the Notice we have asked for Adjournment as the matter belongs to Financial Year 2015-16 which is quite way far from the Present Financial Year so the Bank taking time to provide us the Statement to proof the same and both the Transaction has been processed on or behalf of Saurabh Palawat who is a partner of V.M.V. INDUSTRIES as he has raised loan and now abscond and so a FIR has already been logged against him. Further we had already presented an application before concern Bank to share us the Statement and a Copy of the application has already been attached along with the Adjournment request. Though we have already proved all the entries belongs to the partner only but CIT(A) considering we were unable to shown that the decision of officer is not justified and CIT(A) confirm the order without considering genuineness that the evidence and case belongs to Financial Year 2015-16 and concrete evidence of the same from Bank Institution takes time we continuously followed up but didn't get the statement.”

3.

This appeal has been instituted by the assessee before us on 24.07.2025 and came up for hearing before this Bench on 01.09.2025, 08.09.2025, 07.10.2025, 25.11.2025 and 31.08.2026. We note that despite several opportunities being granted and notices of hearing being sent to the

I.T.A No. 1051/JPR/2025 Page No 3 VMV Industries

address of the assessee given in Form No. 36 in the appeal filed before us, neither the assessee nor its Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to as “AR”) appeared before us.

4.

From the material available on record, we note that the assessee is a partnership firm. For the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act and completed the reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 27,90,000 under section 68 of the Act. The said addition comprises Rs. 13,50,000 on account of capital introduced by a partner and Rs. 14,40,000 on account of an unsecured loan. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT(A). As noted by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5.0 of the impugned order, the assessee did not file any details before him despite more than five opportunities of hearing, and, though it sought adjournments on several occasions, it never complied with the notices of hearing. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A), by the impugned order dated 29.05.2025, upheld the additions made in the assessment order.

5.

Learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as “DR”) submitted that the assessee has been non-cooperative before learned CIT(A) as well as before this Bench. She submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

I.T.A No. 1051/JPR/2025 Page No 4 VMV Industries

6.

We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. The addition of Rs. 27,90,000 was made under section 68 of the Act by treating the capital introduced by a partner and the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits. Under section 68 of the Act, the onus lies on the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee did not discharge this onus before the Assessing Officer. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to file any details despite more than five opportunities, and the addition was confirmed. Even before us, neither the assessee nor its AR appeared on any of the five dates of hearing, nor was any material placed on record to controvert the findings of the authorities below. In the absence of any evidence to rebut those findings, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09-09-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (PRAKASH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 09/09/2026

I.T.A No. 1051/JPR/2025 Page No 5 VMV Industries

*Ganesh Kr., Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, t;iqj

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →