JITENDRA BALIRAM RATHOD,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-1, YAVATMAL , YAVATMAL

ITA 781/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary contention revolved around the unsecured loans obtained from family members and the subsequent loans taken by these family members from third parties, all of whom were assessed to income tax. The Ld. AR presented agreements and bank statements of the lenders in the paper book, demonstrating the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee might not have filed all the material information initially, the evidence presented played a vital role. Considering the facts, circumstances, and the evidence produced, the Tribunal decided that the assessee should not suffer due to the initial non-filing of information. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue, along with the evidence, was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be provided an adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jitendra Baliram Rathod, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 13.01.2025, which upheld the assessment order dated 25.12.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information that the assessee made time deposits of Rs. 15,00,000/- with Central Bank of India in FY 2018-19 without filing a return for AY 2019-20. The assessee claimed the funds originated from selling agricultural land (Rs. 11,00,000/-) and unsecured loans from family members (son and cousin brother, Rs. 4,50,000/- each). The AO sought confirmation letters and bank statements for the unsecured loans, but the assessee provided only confirmation letters. Notices under section 133(6) to the lenders received no response. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 9,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69A, assessing total income at Rs. 9,53,080/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in affirming the order of the AO in making an addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- pertaining to unsecured loans under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The Ld. AR argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action by overlooking the explanation that the loans were obtained from family members who are assessed to income tax. Furthermore, these family members had themselves obtained unsecured loans from third parties, who are also assessed to income tax, and these were supported by material evidence. The Ld. AR also contended that the CIT(A) did not provide an adequate opportunity to substantiate the claim with evidence. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 13.01.2025 passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 25.12.2023 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in affirming the order of the AO in making addition to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- pertaining to unse

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →