VAIBHAV JINDAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2035/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2026AY 2012-20133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the assessee had provided bank statements for both parties and a confirmation from the lender. The Tribunal concluded that sufficient funds were available with the lender to advance the loan.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trader in gold and diamond jewellery, took an unsecured loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- from M/s. Devarya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. The loan and its repayment were conducted through banking channels. The Assessing Officer made an addition on the grounds that the lender's declared total income was low, questioning its creditworthiness.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for an unsecured loan was justified, considering the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Hearing: 16/04/2026Pronounced: 16/04/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2035/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2012-13) ITA No.2035/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2012-13)

Vaibhav Jindal, Shop No.110, Balaji Plaza, Building No. 2532/7, Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AIEPJ-3554-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-51(5), ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent E-2, Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Rohit Singhal, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 16/04/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 16/04/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Shri Rohit Singhal, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the solitary issue assailed in the present appeal is the addition of Rs.18,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Narrating facts of the case, the ld. AR submits that the assessee is a trader in gold and diamond jewellary. The assessee had taken an unsecured loan of Rs.18,00,000/- on 10.03.2012 from M/s. Devarya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that out of the aforesaid loan, a sum of Rs.15.50 lakhs was repaid by the assessee in the month of March 2012 itself and the remaining amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs was repaid in subsequent financial years, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.05.2012 and Rs.50,000/- on

2 ITA No. 2035/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2012-13) 06.09.2013. The entire loan transaction, including repayment, was carried out through banking channels and no interest was paid on the said unsecured loan. The ld. AR further submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer to M/s. Devarya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. In response thereto, the lender duly furnished confirmation of the loan transaction. It is contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition on the ground that since the lender company had declared total income of Rs.44,271/- in its return of income, the creditworthiness of lender is not proved. It is further submitted that the CIT(A), while dismissing appeal of the assessee,has merely reiterated findings of the Assessing Officer without conducting any independent enquiry or bringing any adverse material on record.

3.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has failed to substantiate creditworthiness of the lender as well as the genuineness of the transaction.

4.

The short issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is the addition of Rs.18,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act. The assessee had taken an unsecured loan of Rs.18,00,000/- from M/s. Devarya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. on 10.03.2012. The assessee has placed on record its bank statement (pages 75 to 77 of the paper book), which reflects receipt of the aforesaid loan and repayment of Rs.15.50 lakhs in the month of March 2012 itself in three transactions of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/-. To substantiate the creditworthiness of the lender, the assessee has also placed on record bank statement of M/s. Devarya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (at page 79 of the paper book). A perusal of the same shows that sufficient funds were available with the lender at the time of advancing of interest-

3 ITA No. 2035/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2012-13) free short-term unsecured loan to the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that in response to notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act, the lender has furnished confirmation of the loan transaction. In view of the documentary evidences placed on record, I find merit in submissions of the assessee. The addition of Rs.18,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act is, accordingly, directed to be deleted.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 20/04/2026

NV/- प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →