Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Om Parkash Banwani, challenged an assessment order for AY 2013-14, where the Assessing Officer added unsecured loans totaling Rs. 49,20,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed these loans were from various parties, but the AO found the genuineness and creditworthiness unproven. The assessee then filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) for admission.
Held
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) were crucial and relevant for adjudicating the addition under Section 68. The Tribunal found it fit to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the admission of these additional evidences, to ensure justice and fairplay. The assessee was also permitted to furnish further evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans claimed under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 29.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.03.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-1, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
Ground Nos. 1 and 10 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee to prove 3 ingredients of Section 68 of the Act in respect of loans received which was subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. This goes to the root of the matter and hence we proceed to address the same first.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2013- 14 on 30.10.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 11,12,500/-. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Pawan Kumar Budhamal engaged in the business of manufacturing of hulled seame seeds. The ld AO observed that the assessee had received unsecured loans from 4 parties totaling to Rs. 25,50,000/- and from 12 parties totaling to Rs. 24,70,000/- which are listed out in pages 2 to 4 of the assessment order. The ld AO concluded in the assessment proceedings that assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lenders and had not produced the parties for verification and accordingly proceeded to treat the same as bogus and added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee furnished additional evidences together with the proper application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admission of additional evidences. The following documents were furnished as additional evidences by the assessee before the ld CIT(A):-
a. copy of confirmation received from unsecured loan creditors; b. copy of Form 15G/ 15H received from unsecured loan creditors; c. copy of ITR, computation of income, bank statement, PAN, Aadhar card of unsecured loan creditors; and d. copy of bank statement of assessee maintained with State Bank of India vide A/c No. 30406774448.
It was also pointed out before the ld CIT(A) that some of the loan creditors had advanced monies to the assessee in earlier years and that no fresh loans were received from those parties during the year but the ld AO had added the same as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld AO had reproduced the submission of the assessee containing the additional evidences, but however chose not to admit those additional evidences and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the ld AR prayed for admission of those additional evidences for restoration of appeal to the file of the ld CITA. The ld DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld CIT(A).
We find that the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) are crucial and relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the addition on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act. The documents submitted by the assessee require factual verification to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lenders. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law and with a direction to admit the additional evidences submitted by the assessee. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish further evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. The assessee is directed not to take unwarranted adjournments except due to exceptional or bonafide circumstances and cooperate with the ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In view of the decision in Ground Nos. 2 and 3 above, Ground Nos. 4 to 9 raised by the assessee are also restored to the file of the ld CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/12/2025.