ROOP KISHORE AGARWAL,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

ITA 673/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 October 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s observation that the opening balance of loans/deposits of Rs. 32,57,728 could not be added under Section 68 of the Act during the year under consideration, and only cash credits received during the year were to be considered for addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to restore the matter to the AO for verification of the opening balance and deletion of the addition to that extent. Regarding the rejection of the assessee's prayer for admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A, the Tribunal noted that the AO issued a Section 142(1) notice on 09.12.2019 with a compliance date of 11.12.2019, shortly before the assessment completion deadline. Considering this short span and to ensure substantial compliance with natural justice principles, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence furnished during the first appellate proceedings. The matter was restored back to the AO to admit this evidence, verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured creditors, and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Roop Kishore Agarwal, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 21.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (Delhi) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 4,14,970. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify unsecured loans totaling Rs. 1,64,74,006 and cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) made no addition for cash deposits but treated the entire unsecured loan amount as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding it to the total income via an assessment order dated 31.12.2019. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to verify and delete additions to the extent of the opening balance of loans/deposits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition sustained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts? (Assessee's contention: Identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured creditors were established through ledger accounts, affidavits, and Section 133(6) replies, which were rejected without proper enquiry or confrontation. The addition sustained is liable to be deleted.) (Revenue's contention: Assessee was provided sufficient opportunity during assessment proceedings but failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of unsecured creditors. CIT(A) rightly rejected the prayer for additional evidence.) 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's Rule 46A application for admitting additional evidence was erroneous? (Assessee's contention: The requisition for depositors' returns and bank details came via a Section 142(1) notice dated 09.12.2019, close to the limitation deadline, constituting sufficient cause under Rule 46A(1)(ii)/(iii). The finding that evidence was filed "almost four years" after assessment is factually incorrect.) (Revenue's contention: Assessee was provided sufficient opportunity during assessment proceedings and failed to prove the genuineness of creditors. CIT(A) rightly rejected the prayer for additional evidence.)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 250,Section 46A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P Satsangi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 passed in appeal No CIT(Appeal) 2, Agra/10728/2019-20 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein, ld CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee’s appeal. 2(i). The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.

ITA 673/Agr/2026

4,14,970/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify, the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,64,74,006/-, the cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- in bank account of a

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →