INDUSTRIAL PROGRESSIVE INDIA LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no error in the lower tax authorities' findings. Despite opportunities, the assessee failed to provide adequate financial details of the lender or produce its directors. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 6 crores made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition stemmed from the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of a transaction and the creditworthiness of the loan creditor, M/s Opus Holding Private Limited, as required information and directors were not produced.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee discharged its burden to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of a loan transaction under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: Heard and perused the record.
None has appeared for the Appellant – Assessee. Notices have been issued repeatedly and report is received that there is no such person at the address. Notices have also been issued by e-mail.
Further, record shows for 29.11.2022 an adjournment request was also received by e-mail from the office of Shri Satish Aggarwal & Associaties, Chartered Accountants. No more opportunity is justified.
Arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of the Ld. Tax Authorities.
On appreciating the matter on record, it comes up that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.6 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure of the assessee company to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the loan creditor M/s Opus Holding Private Limited. On appreciating the orders, it comes up that except for providing the basic details of the lender the financials were not provided to support at credibility and in spite of having an opportunity to produce the directors, the assessee failed to produce there. No other opinion can be formed. There is no error in the findings of the Ld. Tax Authorities.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
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 →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
