ABHUDAYA SIKSHA PRASAR NAYAS,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2289/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2026AY 2016-174 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 that the lenders had sufficient bank balances, their identity was not disputed, and transactions were through banking channels. No material was brought on record by the Revenue to show the funds originated from the assessee, and the addition was made on general observations without specific infirmities. Therefore, the ad-hoc addition was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, received unsecured loans from trustees/relatives of trustees. The Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of these loans, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 was justified when the assessee furnished documentary evidence and the lenders had sufficient means, and the addition was ad-hoc without specific defects identified by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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.2289/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2016-17) ITA No.2289/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2016-17)

Abhudaya Siksha Prasar Nayas, C/o CA Vaibhav Goel, 75, Navyug Market, 1st Floor, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AABTA-4233-A बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, CGO Complex 1, Purani Hapur Chungi, ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Vaibhav Goel, 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, Bangaluru [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 22.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The solitary issue raised in the present appeal is with respect to addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of unsecured loans taken by the assessee from trustees/relatives of the trustees.

3.

Shri Vaibhav Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the assessee is a charitable trust registered under section 12AA of the Act. The assessee is running educational institutions. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had taken unsecured loans aggregating to

2 ITA No. 2289/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2016-17) Rs.45,96,802/- from relatives of trustees and related parties. The ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) made an ad-hoc addition of Rs.20,00,000/- out of total unsecured loans without pointing any specific defect in the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. The ld. AR submits that in order to discharge the onus cast upon the assessee, complete details viz. PAN, copy of income tax returns, copy of bank statements of the lenders and confirmations from the lenders were furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. It is further submitted that the addition has been made merely on surmises without bringing any adverse material on record. The ld. AR contended that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO, without appreciating the evidences placed on record. The ld. AR thus prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) and allowing appeal of the assessee.

4.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department, vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has failed to establish creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions.

5.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The addition of Rs.20,00,000/- has been made u/s. 68 of the Act out of total unsecured loans of Rs.45,96,802/- received from following parties:-

Unsecured Parties Opening balance Loan taken during the Returned Income name year Vivek Mittal & Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.40,96,802/- Rs.2,76,764 Associates Sharad Aggarwal Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.3,45,950 Ravi Arora Rs.23,47,300/- Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.2,66,220

3 ITA No. 2289/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2016-17) Vivek Mittal & Associates is a CA Firm of Shri Vivek Mittal husband of Ms. Preeti Mittal, Trustee, Shri Sharad Aggarwal is also related to Ms. Preeti Mittal and Shri Ravi Arora is a trustee.

A perusal of the assessment order shows that the addition has been made primarily on the ground that the lenders have declared low income and failed to substantiate their creditworthiness. The CIT(A) has upheld the addition reiterating findings of the AO. From the documents available on record, i.e. copies of income tax returns and bank statements of the lenders it is evident that the lenders had sufficient balance in bank accounts to advance loan. The identity of the lenders is not in dispute. The transactions have been carried out through banking channels. No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that the funds advanced have emanated from the coffers of the assessee. The addition has been made on general observations without pointing any specific infirmity in the evidences furnished by the assessee. I fail to understand, that if the AO was convinced that the lenders where having no means, then as to way entire loan amount was not added u/s.68 of the Act. The AO without assigning any reason made adhoc addition of Rs.20,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Act. Considering entire facts of the case, I find merit in submissions of the assessee. Hence, adhoc addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act is directed to be deleted.

6.

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

4 ITA No. 2289/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2016-17)

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 →