Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.03.2024 for the AY 2012-13.
At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.6, which is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the order of ld. AO wherein the ld. AO made an addition of ₹1,86,50,058/- on account of unsecured loans by invoking the Provisions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)
The ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. AO by rejecting the submissions of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We note that the assessee has filed the details of loan creditors along with names and addresses, copies of ITR acknowledgements, final accounts, bank statements and conformations etc in respect of loan creditors. We also note that the ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act which were duly complied “69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year."
A perusal of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) makes it adequately clear that the section is applicable if any money, bullion, jewellery or valuation article of which the assessee is found to be owner and the said money is not recorded in the books of account of the assessee if any maintained and the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source thereof. Therefore, even on this count the order of the ld. AO is wrong and cannot be sustained. We note that the ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the ld. AO by ignoring the facts on record. In our opinion, the assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details qua the loan creditors before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) and the onus has shifted to the department.
‘In the absence of any such finding, it is held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and rightly interfered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal re-appreciated the factual position and agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal apart from taking into consideration, the legal effect of the statement of AKA also took note of the fact that the notices which were issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the lenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which were placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book. These materials were available on the file of the Assessing Officer and there is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, the tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. [Para 5]’ 07. We respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.11.2025.