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

आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Office of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals)-1, Jaipur for the assessment year 2013-14. The following grounds as raised by the assessee are reproduced below:

2 ITA No.3637/Mum/2026 Harbans Singh Balder Singh Banwait

“A. GROUND I The Ld. Additional/Joint CIT (Appeals) has upheld the Order dated 11.02.2016 of the Assessing Officer and upheld the addition of Rs 10,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the identity of two persons viz. Mrs Rekha Dhami and Mr Tarun Dhami from whom the assessee had shown loan of Rs 2,70,000/- and Rs 7,30,000/- respectively, without looking into the facts that both the said amounts were received and returned through Bank Accounts and a confirmation letter along with PAN details of the said person(s) were duly furnished, which could have been verified from the system of the income tax department itself and thus, concluding that the identity of these person(s) were not established it erroneous. B. GROUND II The Ld. Additional/Joint CIT (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that there is nothing on record to suggest that the details of Bank Accounts and PAN details of the person(s) from whom the loans were obtained were fictitious or there was any adverse remarks against these Bank Accounts by any Authorities, who had verified the KYC details of these persons opening or operating these Accounts. In such a scenario, conclusion that identity of the person(s) from whom loan was obtained is erroneous. C. GROUND III The Ld. Additional/Joint CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that fact of change of address of the person(s) providing loan or his leaving the last known address cannot be used as a presumption for non-existence of the person(s) particularly in circumstances where the assessee has discharged onus to the extent he could discharge with other corroborative documentary evidence like PAN Account details, Bank Account details, declarations from the Bank and evidence of transactions. D. GROUND IV The Ld. Additional/Joint CIT (Appeals) has excessively relied upon the remand report given by the assessing officer and emphasized upon the issue that the assessee has not establish the creditworthiness of the lenders without appreciating that the provision for statutory presumption to that effect has been made effective from 01.03.2023 by inserting first proviso to

3 ITA No.3637/Mum/2026 Harbans Singh Balder Singh Banwait

Section 68 under the Finance Act, 2022 and hence such presumption cannot have a retrospective effect. E. GROUND V The Ld. Additional/Joint CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the levy of Income tax is on real income of the assessee and if there are material evidence to suggest the real income of the assessee which remains disproved based on material evidences by the revenue, the assessment proceedings cannot be based on assumption or presumption as for sustaining the demand of tax, levy has to be proved based on specific assertion and evidence. F. GROUND VI The Ld. Additional/Joint CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is only an enabling provision for assessment of estimated income in case of certain circumstances and upon it's invocation, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed it's real income or has provided inaccurate particulars of his income and hence the penal consequences related to such an act cannot be invoked. G. GROUND VII The Assessee submits that once the legal grounds for addition of income is not sustainable, the amount of deduction cannot be added in the income of the assessee, hence the demand of tax, interest and penalties would also not sustain The Applicant craves leave this Hon'ble Tribunal to allow addition, alteration or amendment of any Grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing. In view of above, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant prays that DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084519850(1) dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur may kindly be set aside or this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass any other order(s)/direction(s), as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." 2. Ground No. 1 to 7 raised by the assessee are interrelated & interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by A.O. under Section 68 of the

4 ITA No.3637/Mum/2026 Harbans Singh Balder Singh Banwait

Act. Therefore, I have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 3. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgments cites before me and also the order passed by the Revenue authorities. In this case addition were made on account of the fact that assessee had availed loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- and 7,30,000/- from Rekha Dhami and Tarun Dhami and in this regard submitted confirmation letter along with PAN details of the said persons and moreover the entire transactions were carried out through banking channel. It was also brought to my notice that the loan received from these two persons by the assessee has already been repaid and this fact has not been denied by ld. D.R. but still additions have been made by the A.O. which have been upheld. 4. After having gone through the entire facts of the present case, I noticed that assessee has discharged its initial onus of placing on record all the documentary evidences in the shape of certificates from the Punjab National Bank showing payment of loan through various cheques by Rekha Dhami and Tarun Dhami. Apart from this documents have already been placed on record which reflects the repayment of loan to both the lenders i.e. is Rekha Dhami and Tarun Dhami by placing on record the confirmation of accounts by the lenders. To my mind, these documents are enough to prove the transaction between the assessee and those two persons were genuine and moreover, the repayment of entire loan amount strengthens the case of the

5 ITA No.3637/Mum/2026 Harbans Singh Balder Singh Banwait

assessee. Thus relying upon the decisions in the case of DCIT, 12(1)(2) Vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd [2017 SCC On line ITAT 14373], Komal Agrotech P Ltd Vs ITO Ward 2(1), Hyderabad [2016 SCC On line ITAT 12861], Aim Property & Investment Pvt Ltd Vs ITO 5(1)(1), Mumbai [2013 SCC On line ITAT 8354] and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gangeshwari Metals P Ltd [2013 SCC On line Del 270] and also considering the facts of the present case, I direct the A.O. to delete the addition. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated /06/2026 KK, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai