R K BROTHERS INFRAPROP PROVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MYSURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the construction business and trading in M-Sand, Jelly and concrete products. The assessee filed their return of income on 27/09/2022. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. Thereafter several notices were issued for which the

As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 29 days.

The assessee also filed a condonation application. In the said application, the assessee submitted that one of the Director Mr. Pura Kalegowda Shivaram who is looking after the tax matters was having several health issues and he died on 24/08/2025. The assessee also furnished the hospital records and the death certificate and because of that, the appeal was filed with a delay and prayed to condone the said delay and decide the appeal on merits. We have perused the records and found that the assessee’s one of the Director had some health issues and he also died and therefore in the interest of justice, we are condoning the said delay of 29 days.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the addition made u/s. 68 is not correct since the assessee had furnished all the details about the persons from whom the assessee had received unsecured loans. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee had also furnished the confirmation letters given by the creditors and all the creditors are having valid PAN and also furnished the copies of the ITR of the creditors and therefore the addition u/s. 68 could not be made and prayed to delete the addition.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have perused the assessment order as well as the ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A). From the said orders, we found that the authorities had not accepted the confirmation letter produced by the assessee in view of the some variations found in the said confirmation letters. The Ld.CIT(A) had also not accepted the said confirmation letters since the assessee had not submitted any written submissions nor filed any supporting documents and therefore doubted the said unsecured loan as dubious and therefore confirmed the order of the AO.

As seen from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had not responded to the several notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and not filed any written submissions as well as the supporting documents and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. The assessee right from the beginning had given the details of the persons from whom the assessee had secured loans and also furnished the details of the persons including the PAN and therefore the genuineness of the said transactions could not be doubted simply because the assessee had not filed any written submissions and also not filed any supporting documents. No doubt, the assessee had took efforts to establish the genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors but unfortunately, they failed to submit the documents before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) had concluded that the entire addition made u/s. 68 is in order.

We do not find that the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) should be sustained for the simple reason that the assessee had not filed any written

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.