ROVE ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORP CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to the lower authorities. However, to meet the ends of justice, the assessee is granted one last opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence before the AO.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1.5 Crores on account of unexplained unsecured loan. The assessee claimed the amount was from a non-resident Director, Mr. Varghese, but failed to satisfactorily explain the source and genuineness before the AO and CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to explain the unsecured loan and its genuineness as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063641867(1) dated 29.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-
Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 29.03.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 Brief facts of the case are that the AO had made an addition of Rs.1.5 Crores on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68. The assesse had informed the impugned amount had come from one Mr.Vancen Varghese, an expatriate, Director of Company. Before the AO and the CIT(A) the assesee’s conduct fell short of satisfactorily explaining the resources of the amount and the genuineness of the transaction etc.
3.0 At the outset, the Ld.DR pointed out that the facts of the case narrated by the Ld.DR in the light of cited evidences qua addition of Rs.1.50 Crores were not produced before the Ld.AO (as evident from the para 3.2 of the assessment order) and before the Ld.CIT(A) (as evident from the last para of the appellate order).
4.0 Per contra, the Ld.AR wants us to give relief to the assesse in the light of submissions made and evidences produced.
5.0 We have heard rival submission in the light of facts of the case and material brought on records. It is an evident fact of the case that the assesse did not submit to the AO evidences satisfactorily establishing the tenets prescribed u/s 68. The assesse also miserably failed in doing the same before the first appellate authority. The assesse therefore cannot make any justified claim for relief against additions made. Before us the submissions made and the corresponding evidences produced have not been examined by the lower authorities. The assesse has in detail explained that Shri Varghese is non-resident Director and the impugned amount of loan moved from his NRE account to NRO account before landing in Federal Bank account of the assesse. The assessing officer possess the first authority to examine any details / evidences before determining taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore hold the view that ends of justice would be met if the assesse is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh assessment de novo. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. To the extent the order of the lower authorities is set aside and all the grounds of appeals raised by the assesse are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
6.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th August, 2024 at Chennai.
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 →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026