KRISHNA INFRATEC,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3267/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct independent enquiry and the assessee provided sufficient documentation including ledger, PAN, and bank statements for the transaction. It also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 2,43,43,780/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and an addition of Rs. 20 lacs was made treating an unsecured loan as unexplained credit. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, sustaining the addition of Rs. 20 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lacs on account of unsecured loan is sustainable without proper independent inquiry by the AO and sufficient supporting documents from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 68,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “E” BENCH

For Appellant: CA Ms. Sunidhi Sharma
Hearing: 08/09/2025Pronounced: 12/09/2025

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 23.04.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 arising out of the assessment order dated 19.03.2021 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

The brief facts of the care are that being a partnership firm filed return of income declaring income of Rs.2,43,43,780/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny in assessment year came to passed u/s. 143 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short). By making an Krishna Infratech Vs. ACIT addition of Rs.20 lacs by treating unsecured loan as unexplained credit u/s. 68of the Act vide assessment order dated 19.03.2021. As against the assessment order dated 19.03.2021 there was preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23.04.2025 partly allowed the appeal wherein sustained the addition of Rs.20 lacs received as unsecured loan from M/s. Ridhi Enterprises. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 23.04.2025, the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) committed error in sustaining the addition of Rs.20 lacs with respect to the loan received from M/s. Ridhi Enterprises which has been squared up during the year itself. Thus, it is submitted that the Ld. AO committed error in making the said addition and the CIT(A) also confirmed the said addition which is illegal and deserves to be deleted.

4.

Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has not extend the nature and source of the credit in account of the assessee and the assessee has not furnished ITR of the lender to prove the genuinenity and identity of the transaction/ party. Thus submitted that the CIT(A) order request no interference at the hands of the Tribunal thus sought for the dismissal of the appeal.

Krishna Infratech Vs. ACIT 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only reason for making the addition of Rs. 20 lacs received M/s. Ridhi Enterprises is that the assessee has not furnished the income tax return of M/s. Ridhi Sharma Enterprises. It is observed that the AO has made any independent enquiry by issuing notice u/s. 133 (6) of the Act to the lender. The assessee has also provided the ledger, PAN, bank statement and other details of the lender in support of proving transaction and admittedly the transaction was made in banking channel. In view of the facts and circumstances and the Ld. CIT(A) also have deleted the addition. Further the assessee has also filed produce income tax return of Pushkar Pratap Singh and also statement of account.

6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and also looking into the merits of the case we deem it fit to admit the additional evidence and delete the sustained addition of Rs.20 lacs.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 September, 2025.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →