Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring an income, but the AO, based on a search, found that the assessee had given a cash loan of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- to Ahuja Group, which was considered unexplained. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed the order without verifying the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the relevant details.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of an unexplained cash loan sustained by the CIT(A) was justified without proper verification of supporting documents.
Sections Cited
69A, 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 29/05/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1076549415(1) for the assessment year 2016-17.
The issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.
In the present case, the assessee filed the return of income declaring an income of Rs. 14,80,760/- only. However, the AO based on Page 2 of 4 the documents found in search conducted on Ahuja Group u/s 132 of the Act dated 25/06/2025, that the assessee has given cash loan to Ahuja Group for Rs. 1,55,00,000/- only. The AO, after considering the income shown by the assessee in the earlier years, was of the view that the source of cash loan provided by the assessee does not justify. Accordingly, the AO treated the same as unexplained loan u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.
On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing that the assessee has not furnished the supporting documents. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “2.2 On going through the submission of the assessee, following observations are made: I. The assessee did not furnish ledger of Ahuja group in her books and in the books of Mahesh Kalro, Sujatha and Rohit Kalro. Further the assessee has also not furnished the loan confirmation issued by Ahuja group to substantiate the claim that only loan of Rs.65 lakhs was given by her and remaining loan was giv n by her family members. -- ii. The assessee furnished her bank statement along with the bank statement of Mahesh Kalroand Sujatha Kalrobut failed to furnish bank statement of Rohit Kalro. iii. The assessee furnished promissory note firm note and bills of exchange issued by Ahuja group to her and Rohit Kalro only but not of Mahesh Kalro and Sujatha Kairo. Also, the promissory notes cannot be treated as confirmation that the transaction has actually taken place. 2.3 As evident from the above, the assessee failed to prove the genuienty of the transactions as claimed by her. In view of the this, the claim of the assessee that out of loan amount of Rs.1.55 crs given to Ahuja group, the assessee has given loan of only Rs.65 lakhs along with 25 lakh from Rohit, 25 lakh from Sujatha and 40 lakh from Mahesh kumar HUF is not acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that the cash loan of Rs.1.55 crs. received by Ahuja group is given by the assessee, Gitanjali Mahesh Kalro which remains unexplained. The addition of Rs.1,55,00,000/- u/s 69A is confirmed. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.”
Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 132 and submitted that all the supporting materials justify the source of loan given to Ahuja group. According to the ld. AR, the loan was given by the assessee along with the other parties in the earlier year. The details of such loan parties is available on page 79 of the paper book. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that no addition should be done on account on such loan in the year under consideration.
The ld. AR also submitted that all the details of the parties along with the bank statements were furnished but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. To this effect, the ld. AR drew our attention on the details of loan along with bank statement, ledger copy, bill of exchange which are placed on page 79 to 124 of the paper book. However, the ld. AR fairly admitted that all the details have not been considered by the lower authorities and therefore, the matter can be set aside to the file of AO for necessary verification as per the provisions of law.
On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the order has been passed by the authorities below without verification of the documents, which were evidently filed by the assessee during the .
Page 4 of 4 respective proceedings. This fact can be verified from the various details enclosed in the paper book. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to set aside the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law after considering the relevant details filed by the assessee. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall co-operate during the proceedings and avoid unwarranted adjournment. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 4th day of November, 2025