HARBANS SINGH BALDEV SINGH BANWAIT,ANDHERI, MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-24(2)(1), PAREL-MUMBAI

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There was also no application seeking adjournment. Considering the circumstances and the material available on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and on the basis of the material available on record.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of film distribution. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,27,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act 1961 (“the Act”). During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed from the Balance Sheet that the assessee had shown unsecured loans aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/-, comprising Rs.2,70,000/- from Mrs. Rekha Dhami and Rs.7,30,000/- from Mr. Tarun Dhami. For verification of the said loan transactions, notices under section 133(6) of the Act were issued to the lenders, which were returned unserved with the postal remark “Left”. The assessee was thereafter required to produce the lenders along with supporting documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. AO, being not satisfied with the explanation and evidence furnished by the assessee, treated the aggregate amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished certain additional evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements reflecting repayment of the loans, and a certificate from the bank. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence to the Ld. AO and called for a remand report. In the remand report, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transactions. The remand report was also furnished to the assessee for filing a rejoinder; however, no rejoinder was filed. After considering the material available on record and the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the identity of the lenders remained unverified, the notices issued under section 133(6) had returned unserved, and sufficient documentary evidence establishing the creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions had not been furnished. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. Being further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR and carefully perused the orders of the revenue authorities and the material available on record. The primary grievance of the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act, comprising loans of Rs.2,70,000/- from Mrs. Rekha Dhami and Rs.7,30,000/- from Mr. Tarun Dhami. We find that the Ld. AO had made enquiries in respect of the aforesaid lenders by issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act; however, the notices were returned unserved with the remark “Left”. The assessee was also required to produce the lenders and furnish supporting evidence in respect of the impugned loans. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished certain additional evidence, which was duly forwarded to the Ld. AO for verification and a remand report was obtained. Thus, the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was subjected to verification at the appellate stage. 3 On consideration of the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee had not satisfactorily established the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that although the assessee had produced evidence regarding repayment of the loans through banking channels, sufficient evidence demonstrating the financial capacity of the respective lenders to advance the impugned amounts had not been furnished. Significantly, the remand report was supplied to the assessee for rebuttal, but no rejoinder was filed before the Ld. CIT(A).

The levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, being consequential and statutory in nature, shall follow in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 3797/Mum/2026 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of August 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 19/08/2026 4 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI