Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its return for AY 2020-21. Following a search on Balaji Group, a notice under Section 153A was issued, and the AO assessed the assessee's income to include ₹31,15,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) subsequently allowed the assessee's appeal, which led the Revenue to file the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the ₹31,15,000/- was a repayment of a loan previously advanced by the assessee to M/s Popular Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. in FY 2019-20. The transaction was supported by banking channels and relevant documents, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, where the assessee contended the amount was a repayment of an earlier loan rather than an unexplained cash credit.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE, 153A, 143(3), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-26 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.12.2024 for the AY 2020-21.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a company filed the return of income for the assessment year 2020-21, declaring total income at ₹25,27,240/-. A search and seizure operation were conducted in case of Balaji Group. A notice u/s 153A was issued and in compliance to the same assessee filed the return and submitted various documents. The ld. AO passed the assessment order assessing the income of the assessee at ₹31,15,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Revenue preferred an appeal.
The ld. DR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the party. The ld. DR has further challenged that the ld. CIT (A) erred in ignoring that assessee has admitted the fact in respect of receipt of ₹31,15,000/- as unsecured loan in F.Y. 2019-20, whereas it misreported the fact during the appellate proceedings by claiming that it was not received of loan rather it was refund of loan received in earlier years. The ld. DR has further submitted that monetary limit for file appeal before the ld. ITAT as prescribed by the CBDT Circular is not applicable in the present case as the case falls under the exceptional laws.
Contrary to that, the ld. AR support the impugned order thereby submitting that loans were received through proper banking channels and it was repaid. It has further been argued by the ld. AR that the assessee given a loan of ₹31,15,000/- in the earlier year and the borrow M/s Popular Tie-up Pvt. Ltd has repaid the same with interest in the current year and both the transactions were executed through account payee cheque. The ld. AR supports the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A).
Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respective parties we have perused the impugned order and find that assessee company
“1. Loan confirmation in the year of taking loan (Filed before AO) 2. Loan confirmation in the year of loan repayment (Filed before AO) 3. Audited Accounts of the Payer (Filed before AO) 4. Income Tax Return of the Payer (Filed before AO) 5. Bank Statement of the Payer (Filed before AO) 6. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act.” 07. We have also gone through the submission made by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) which had been tabulated by the ld. CIT (A) in its order, which is as follows: -
A.Y. / Date Loan given to Loan repaid Interest TDS Closing Popular Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. 2020-21 13.03.2020 ₹31,15,000/- 16.03.2020 ₹31,15,000/- Nil 08. Going over the order passed by the ld. CIT (A), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as it appears from the above table that the assessee in F.Y. 2019-20, relevant to A.Y. 2020-21, had advanced
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025.