Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs.7,13,810/-. The case was flagged as high risk due to alleged receipt of commission and unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of undisclosed commission and unexplained income. The CIT(A) granted partial relief on commission income but sustained the addition on unsecured loans.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and the lenders for the unsecured loans. The AO's excessive addition on commission was rectified by the CIT(A), and no interference was deemed necessary.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO on account of undisclosed commission and unsecured loans were justified and properly sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proof regarding the genuineness of loan transactions.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 147, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y. 2018-19) Manoj Kumar, S/o. Shri Chander Bhan, Ward No.1, Near Aggarsain Dharamshala, Barwala, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant District Hisar, Haryana 125121 PAN: BGFPK-7299-K बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-14, Hisar, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 125001 अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 24/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19.
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,13,810/-. The case of the assessee was flagged as “high risk category” as the assessee had allegedly received commission of Rs.13,72,825/- from M/s Future Maker Care Life Ltd. during the year under (AY 2018-19) consideration and the same was not reflected in full in the return of income. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee after due compliance of the provision of section 148A of the Act. In response to the notices u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 17.05.2022 declaring total income of Rs.7,13,810/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that in fact the assessee received commission of Rs.6,81,243/- from M/s. Future Maker Care Life P. Ltd. and to earn said commission, the assesee has incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,80,426/-. However, in Form No. 26AS it has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.9,13,000/-. To match the commission figure as mentioned in Form No. 26AS, the assessee while filing return of income has increased the commission received by Rs.2,31,757/- and claimed equal the effect of amount as expenditure to nullify the effect of increase in commission. Since the expenditure claimed is dummy. No documentary evidences are required to be furnished to substantiate the same. The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee and made addition of Rs.6,91,582/-(Rs.13,72,825 - Rs.6,81,243) on account of undisclosed commission under the head income from other sources. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.6,90,583/- u/s.69A of the Act on account of unexplained income. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 16.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order granted part relief to the assessee on account of commission income and sustained the addition of Rs.2,31,757/-. The CIT(A) further sustained addition of Rs.6,90,583/- on account of unsecured loan u/s.69A of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.
Notice of hearing of the appeal was served on the assessee on 04.03.2025 Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee, (AY 2018-19) thereafter, the appeal was taken up of hearing on 21.07.2025. None appeared to represent the assessee and appeal was adjourned to 29.07.2025. Again on the said date none appeared to represent the assessee. It seems that the assesssee is not keen to defend the appeal. Hence, the appeal is taken up for hearing on the basis of material already available on record and with the assistance of ld. DR.
Ms. Sudha Gupta, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The contention of the assessee is that the actual commission received by the assessee is Rs.6,81,243/-, the amount of Rs.9,13,000/- has been wrongly mentioned in Form 26AS. If the amount of commission mentioned in Form No.26AS was wrong, the assessee should have taken step to get it rectified, instead the assessee allegedly enhanced the amount of commission while filing return of income by Rs.2,31,757/- and, thereafter, has claimed matching amount as expenditure. The explanation furnished by the assessee to match amount reflected in Form No.26AS as actual commission received by the assessee is beyond comprehension. The AO erred in making addition of Rs.6,91,582/- which was subsequently restricted to Rs.2,31,757/- by the CIT(A) during First Appellate proceedings. I find that the error made by the AO in making the excessive addition has been rectified by the CIT(A). I see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, ground no. 2 of appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
In so far as the addition made by AO on account of cash in hand amounting to Rs.2,25,500/- is concerned. I find that no documentary evidence was filed by the assessee to substantiate opening cash in hand. As regard the receipts of loan (AY 2018-19) from various lenders, the assessee has failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of the transaction and the lenders. The assessee has placed on record affidavits from alleged lenders along with their proof of identity in the form of Aadhaar Card. However, no PAN details and their financial creditworthiness to advance such loan were furnished by the assessee. In the absence of vital information, the authorities below have rightly rejected the transaction of advances. Hence, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on this account is upheld.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 24th day of October, 2025.