KOORANOOR RANGARAJ VIMALKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 4(4), COIMBATORE

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Impugned Order is unjust, unreasonable and bad in law.

Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant is an Individual. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 filed on 26.07.2023 declaring income of Rs.6,92,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Faceless e-Assessment Unit of the Department (herein after called ‘AO’) vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax act at a total income of Rs.46,61,130/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of unsecured loans of Rs.39,68,982/- for the inability of the assessee to discharge onus of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the above loans.

Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) without affording proper reasonable opportunity of representing the matter before him had dismissed the appeal by giving only one hearing notice. He, further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had failed to consider the detailed evidences filed before him on 18.09.2025 discharging the onus of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of sundry creditors. Thus, he prayed that the mater may be remanded to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR opposed the above submission and submits that the appellant had failed to discharged his onus to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the sundry creditors, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would be evident that the Assessing Officer made addition of unsecured loans for alleged failure of the appellant to dischargethe onus of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the sundry creditors. It is also evident that the Assessing Officer also issued notices u/s.133(6) of the Act to the creditors except one, none responded to the notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act. It appears that during the course of proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed the confirmation letters, copies of ledger account etc, in an attempt to discharge onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. Since this evidence was not considered by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of Assessing Officer, as it requires the verification of evidence filed before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law after affording the opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th April, 2026.