Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs.10,99,000 from M/s. Jagsakti Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which was identified as a shell company providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer added Rs.10,00,055/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, an order upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had availed the unsecured loan and repaid the entire amount within two months, both transactions conducted through banking channels. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under Section 68.
Key Issues
Whether an unsecured loan, which was received and repaid within a short period through banking channels, can be deemed an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 when the lender is identified as a shell company.
Sections Cited
143(1), 148, 143(2), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Appearances by: Shri A.K. Keshari, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: November 10, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: November 13, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.07.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014.
Facts in brief are that the appellant-assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income electronically on 20.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs.7,81,880/-. The said return was 1 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Sushila Devi Choudhury processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act on 20.11.2014 accepting return of income without any variation. In this case, information was received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(3), Kolkata vide his letter dated 11.12.2018. After recording the reasons of reopening, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2020 thereby requiring the assessee to file and deliver return of income for AY 2013-14 within thirty days from the service of notice. In response, the assessee filed the return of income on 26.03.2020 declaring total income of Rs.5,44,980/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 05.03.2021. On verification of the documents submitted by the assessee, it was seen that an amount of Rs.10,99,000/- was credited to assessee’s Axis Bank Account, Bolpur Branch on 21.12.2012. The assessee also submitted a paper from M/s. Jagsakti Commodities Pvt. Limited from which it is seen that the confirmation of account has been made by the Director of the said Company. Since the assessee has confirmed the transaction made with the Jagsakti Commodities Pvt. Ltd. during FY 2012-13 on account of receipt of unsecured loan and as the information in this case was received from DDIT (inv.), Unit-1(3), Kolkata, which has clearly stated that the assessee is a beneficiary of Banka Group of cases, who were engaged in colorable transaction on account of bogus unsecured loan from the abovementioned shell company. On verification of the Bank accounts of paper/shell companies of Banka Group, various beneficiaries have been identified who have obtained accommodation entry in the nature of bogus unsecured loan or in other forms, from the paper/shell companies of Banka Group. During the course of post search verification of (A.Y. 2013-2014) Sushila Devi Choudhury seized/impounded materials, various paper/shell companies controlled and managed by Shri Mukesh Banka were identified. All these companies including M/s. Jagsakti Commodities Pvt. Ltd. were categorically accepted by Shri Mukesh Banka as paper/shell companies controlled and managed by him for the purpose of providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus unsecured loans or in other forms. The ld. Assessing Officer considering the facts of the case observed that the explanation provided by the assessee about the nature and source of the credit in the books maintained in the form of unsecured loan is not found to be satisfactory and he treated Rs.10,00,055/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer determined the total assessed income of the assessee at Rs.17,81,935/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by saying that all the grounds of appeal as advanced are to be treated as not maintainable as per facts available on record on merits and the assessee failed to establish its genuinity with all supporting proofs as sought by the ld. Assessing Officer during assessment proceeding to support her contentions as per law and there exists no infirmity in the order of ld. Assessing Officer in treating the unexplainable unsecured loans and involving unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
(A.Y. 2013-2014) Sushila Devi Choudhury 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the assessee that the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs.10,00,055/- on 21.12.2012. Thereafter the assessee repaid the entire loan amount on 11.02.2013. Taking of unsecured loan and repayment of loan were made through banking channel, therefore, the question of explaining cash credit does not arise. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities. He further submitted that the loan was only on accommodation entry, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, ld. D.R. pleaded before the Bench to uphold the orders passed by the lower authorities.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on records. It is an admitted fact that the assessee availed unsecured loan through banking channel and within a short span of two months’ time, she repaid the loan amount through banking channel. Therefore, I am of the view that the ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in making the addition under section 68 of the Act. Since the assessee has taken the loan and repaid the loan amount within a short span of two months’, therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
(A.Y. 2013-2014) Sushila Devi Choudhury 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/11/2025.