SRI SURESH KUMAR,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BELLARY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to explain the loan creditors. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed loans from Federal Bank and unsecured loans, retracting an earlier admission of income during a survey. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 99.78 lakhs to the assessee's income, believing the loans were created for sources repaid before or obtained after the survey. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of loan creditors was justified without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of loans.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.10.2018 of the CIT(Appeals), Gulbarga for the assessment year 2013-14.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. However, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.
The assessee has raised as many as 16 grounds in this appeal. However, ground No.2 is that the assessment order was passed in a hurried manner without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Admittedly, in this case, the AO made an addition of Rs.99.78 lakhs towards the loan creditors. Though it was admitted by the assessee at the time of survey, later it was retracted and stated that these loans are availed from Federal Bank and unsecured loans. The AO was of the opinion that loans were created for the sources which were repaid before the date of survey or obtained after the date of survey and the explanation given by the assessee was an after-thought to retract the income offered in the survey. Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs.99.78 lakhs. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO.
In our opinion, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the loan creditors. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remit the issue in dispute to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain these loans.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of April, 2022.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026