M/S SEVENSEAS GLOBAL EXPRESS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that an incorrect Form 16A was submitted inadvertently. It restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to clarify the factual discrepancy.
What were the facts?
The assessee's loan of Rs. 9 lakhs from M/s. Jayesh Enterprises was added by the AO under Section 68 due to a discrepancy in the PAN number provided in the confirmation letter versus Form 16A. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition under Section 68 is justified when there is a discrepancy in the PAN number due to inadvertent submission of an incorrect Form 16A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.9 lakhs made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short].
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the freight forwarding business. The A.O. disallowed a sum of Rs.15.25 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act, which consisted of loan of M/s. Sevenseas Global Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
Page 2 of 3 Rs.6.25 lakhs taken from Shri Totlani Enterprises and Rs.9 lakhs taken from M/s. Jayesh Enterprises. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.6.25 lakhs relating to Shri Totlani Enterprises. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.9.00 lakhs relating to Jayesh Enterprises on the reasoning that there is difference in the permanent account number mentioned in the confirmation letter and in the copy of Form No.16A filed by the assessee.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had taken loan from M/s. Jayesh Enterprises and also another person named Jayesh Kothari. At the time of filing documents, Form No.16A belonging to Jayesh Kothari has been filed inadvertently. He submitted that the assessee has furnished balance confirmation letter as well as Form No.16A issued to M/s. Jayesh Enterprises in the paper book. As such, there is no confusion as presumed by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to give necessary clarifications to the A.O. in this regard.
The Ld. D.R. also did not oppose to the plea of the Ld. A.R.
We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.9.00 lakhs availed for the reason that the PAN number mentioned in the confirmation letter and in Form No.16A are different. The assessee now clarifies that Form No.16A filed before Ld. CIT(A) actually belongs to some other party. The Ld. A.R. also submits that the assessee would be in a position to clarify this factual aspect before the A.O. if an opportunity is given. In the interest of natural justice, we find merit in the prayer put forth by Ld. A.R., since the addition has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) only for the reason that there is difference
M/s. Sevenseas Global Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
Page 3 of 3 in the PAN number. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to clarify this confusion. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of addition of Rs.9.00 lakhs and restore the same to the file of the A.O. for examining it afresh. The assessee may furnish all the documents that may be called for by the AO in this regard.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th June, 2021.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026