SHK CORPORATION PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prove the details of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee company declared a certain income, but the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 9,86,40,100/- as unsecured loans under Section 68 and disallowed interest expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence regarding unsecured loans and interest expenditure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding that your appellant has received unsecured loan of Rs.9,86,40,100/- during the year under consideration inspite of facts that there were increase in loan amount of Rs.5,75,953/- only and there were total borrowing of Rs.5,91,80,970/- only at the end of the year. And therefore, we humbly request the Hon’ble bench to delete the entire addition of Rs.9,86,40,100/- erroneously upheld by the Hon’ble CIT(A) on this ground.
2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in not passing any order or not giving any comment on interest expenditure. Since the entire interest expense of Rs.23,67,904/- paid to the Banks and not to the depositors. We therefore humbly request the Hon’ble Bench to delete the entire addition of Rs.23,67,904/- on this ground.
Page 2 of 3 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble CIT(A) fails to give sufficient opportunity to your appellant to produce the necessary evidences to prove the error committed by our Tax Auditor in reporting of details of unsecured loans accepted during the year under consideration in the Tax Audit Report and pass an order hurriedly, though specific written request, without giving enough time to recheck and re-verification of accounts. And therefore, we humbly request the Hon’ble bench to delete the all addition upheld by the Hon’ble CIT(A) on this ground.
The assessee filed return of income on 27.10.2015 declaring total income at Rs.12,45,920/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken or accepted unsecured loans during the year under consideration and called for details. The assessee provided the said details and after going through the same, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,86,40,100/- as unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer also disallowed interest expenses of Rs.23,67,904/-. The assessment order was passed on 27.12.2017.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. The Postal Authority’s remarks were “left”. No new address has been given to the Registry by the assessee. Hence, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) which are reproduced in their respective orders.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) proceeded on the basis of Tax Audit Report and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account but the assessee failed to submit any evidence as regards to the loan. The CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the assessee for proving the case related to the specific details of the parties from whom the assessee received
Page 3 of 3 the loans. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of CIT(A). Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Appeal is, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 21st day of September, 2022.
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 Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
