ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the Rs. 3 crore addition, noting that the seized document showed both the receipt and repayment of the loan, thus it could not be considered unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of invoking Section 68 or initiating proceedings under Section 269SS/269T, such a loan should be treated as a liability, not income.
What were the facts?
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 3 crores, which the Assessing Officer had treated as unexplained cash loan under Section 69A based on a slip found during a search. The CIT(A) had, however, sustained an addition of Rs. 5.65 lakhs as unexplained interest income under Section 69C. The Revenue appealed the deletion of the Rs. 3 crore addition.
What were the issues?
Whether a cash loan, both received and repaid as indicated by a seized document, can be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, particularly when provisions of Section 68, 269SS, or 269T are not invoked.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 269SS,Section 269T,Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 10.06.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-31/10297/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
The grounds of the Revenue are as follows:- “1. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- by treating the amount of Rs. 3Cr. As unsecured cash loan taken and repaid during the year under consideration by ignoring the fact that the assessee was never able to furnish any supporting document in support of the same during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact in considering the amount of Rs. 5,65,000/- as interest paid by the assessce by ignoring the fact that assessee was never able to furnish any supporting document in support of the expenditure made during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the contentions of the ld. DR supporting the order of the AO, we find that the same has no substance. In the case before us, the assessee’s return was filed on 29.03.2017 and, thereafter, there was a search operation on 09.09.2015 and the assessment was completed at an income of Rs.3,14,65,000/- against the returned income of Rs.8,97,310/-. The AO has made an addition of Rs.3,05,65,000/- u/s 69A being Rs.3 crores as advance loan given and Rs.5,65,000/- as interest received thereupon on the basis of noting on a slip found from the appellant. This slip has been scanned on the body of the assessment order and has also been considered by us. Based upon this slip, the additions were made which have been deleted by the ld.CIT(A) by following observations:- “16. As per the above document, there was receipt of Rs.3 Crores and the same was returned. Hence, the balance nil is appearing. On such amount of loan, interest has been computed at Rs.5,65,000/-- 17. The entire document has to be deciphered in its totality. The first entry is in respect of receipt of money of Rs.3 Crores. The subsequent entry is of returning back. Therefore, apparently, the amount of Rs.3 Crores was received and it was repaid. The Assessing Officer has also treated it as loan transaction. However, the Assessing Officer has considered the transaction as that of first receiving the loan and subsequently giving it as loan on interest. However, on perusal of the document it is evident that the appellant has first received the loan and subsequently repaid the loan. On perusal of the document it cannot be inferred that after receiving the loan, the appellant has given loan on interest to someone as was held by the Assessing Officer. The inference of the Assessing Officer is not logical and does not flow from the impugned seized documents.
18. The appellant has not been able to explain whether or not such transaction has been reflected in his accounts for the return of income. Apparently, the amount was received in cash and that is the reason why the transaction is not reflected in the accounts or the return. The appellant could not furnish any evidence contrary to the conclusion that the amount of loan was received by way of cash. Therefore, it is held that the appellant received loan in cash amounting to Rs.3 crores and repaid the same.
19. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the appellant maintained any books of accounts and that the said amount of loan was recorded in the books of accounts. Further, it Is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus of prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the Assessing Officer has not invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act in bringing to tax the amount of Rs.3 Crores.
20. Other than invoking the provisions of section 68, the loans cannot be treated as Income. The Assessing Officer has not initiated any proceedings u/s 269SS or 269T that deals with the cases of accepting loans in cash and repaying the loan in cash. Loans do not take the character of income until there is a deeming provision in the law. Therefore, the loan has to be treated as liability and not income of the appellant.
Therefore, It is held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the loan of Rs.3 Crores received in cash as unexplained money u/s 3
69A of the appellant. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.3 Crores added by the Assessing Officer is deleted.”
However, the ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition of the interest of Rs.5,65,000/- as unexplained money and made an addition u/s 69C of the Act.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Smt. Amna Baghel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Harshita Seeds vs. Idbi BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Rajdeep vs. Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
