BALVINDER SINGH,JAMHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 254/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 September 2026AY 2011-127 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted confirmations and bank statements from all persons from whom unsecured loans were taken during the period under consideration. Copies of ITRs for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, along with balance sheets and Profit and Loss accounts of the creditors, were also provided. The Tribunal found that since all creditors were assessed to income tax, their identity could not be doubted. Furthermore, all transactions were conducted through banking channels, and details of each transaction, supported by bank statements, were furnished. The Tribunal concluded that the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions were established by the assessee. Therefore, there was no justification to confirm the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The addition of ₹7,35,000 was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balvinder Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of ₹16,50,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unsecured loans, stating the assessee failed to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting an addition of ₹9,15,000 but confirming the remaining ₹7,35,000. The ITAT had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-appearance, but later recalled its order upon the assessee filing a miscellaneous application, directing the appeal to be re-heard. The current hearing pertains to this re-adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming an addition of ₹7,35,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unsecured loans, solely based on a remand report that noted the bank did not enter the lender's name in the bank account, despite the transaction amount being reflected and confirmation provided. 2. Whether the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition of ₹7,35,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing an opportunity to examine evidence, documents, or cross-examine witnesses produced by the Assessing Officer, as per Rule 46 of the IT Rules. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the unsecured loan was disclosed in the audited Balance Sheet and the return of income. During remand proceedings, confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets of creditors were submitted, establishing their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The assessee contended that all transactions were through bonafide banking channels and that the AO's satisfaction was mechanical. The assessee also raised concerns about not receiving the remand report and not being given an opportunity to comment on it before the faceless CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Mittal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27/08/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 30/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

For that the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the impugned order dated 30th March, 2024. 2. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing the aforesaid appeal fully filed by the assessee being the appellant herein.

3.

For that whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →