RAHUL GUPTA,GURGAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

ITA 4230/DEL/2024

AI Insights

Rahul Gupta appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre, which upheld an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 to his income for the assessment year 2014-15. This addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) due to doubts about the creditworthiness of an unsecured loan from Matbar Singh. The tribunal examined the documents and evidence presented, including bank statements and a ledger account from Matbar Singh, and concluded that the creditworthiness of the lender was sufficiently established. The tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not considering the available evidence properly and allowed the appeal, deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 27053 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: KAVITA GUPTA; ANKIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 250; 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 4230/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4230/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Gupta, House No. 258D, behind Payal Cinema, Sector-145, Gurgaon PIN: 122 007 Vs. ITO, Ward -3(1). Gurgaon PAN :ANIPG2295C (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBRE Assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 16.07.2024 under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred “the Act” ) passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi in an appeal before him arising out of assessment Assessee by Ms. Kavita Gupta, Adv. & Shri Ankit Kansal, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of hearing 04.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 07.02.2025 2 ITA No.4230/Del/2024 order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the A.O. or in short “AO”) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee is an individual filed his return of income for assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.2,32,040. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under reassessment for the reasons of high value cash/non cash credits. Assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act was initiated and with regard to unsecured loan of Rs.2.45 Crs. from various parties, Assessing Officer was not satisfied about their creditworthiness, accordingly, concluded assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act making addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-. The assessee approached Ld. CIT(Appeals) and filed additional evidences on which remand report was sought and ultimately assessee got relief except to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- which were on account of unsecured loan taken from one Matbar Singh. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the creditworthiness of the lender was not established as the copy of ITR was not made available in this lender’s case. Accordingly, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 3 ITA No.4230/Del/2024 “1. That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as the same is against the Principle of Natural Justice. 2. That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as the Honorable CIT(A) rejected the submissions of the assessee in the form of bank statements clearly reflecting the receipt of loan from Sh. Matbar Singh and repayment of loan to Shri Matbar Singh and went on to pass the order against the assessee treating the loans as unexplained income. 3. That the Honorable CIT(A) has failed to comprehensively consider the facts of the case and impart justice in the present case. 4. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. 5. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging interest under Section 234A and 234B. 6. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter or abandon any or all of the above grounds at the time of the appeal”. 3. Learned AR has primarily argued on the basis of the documents available in paper books that said Matbar Singh was salaried person who had Form 16 in his favour and assessee had received the amount through banking channel. Thus, for the purpose of section 68 of the Act, assessee had established the source of loan and non-filing of ITR by the lender, cannot be the basis to dispute the creditworthiness. 4. Learned DR has, however, depended the impugned order and it was submitted that the lender had meager salary income. It was also 4 ITA No.4230/Del/2024 submitted that bank statement of the lender is not showing if he had any other source within the salary. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that during the remand proceedings, the assessee had submitted confirmed copy of bank account statement of both the parties wherein the transaction between both the parties are clearly reflecting of the loan of the amount of Rs.5,00,000. The confirmation was received from the bank for the relevant entry. Notice was issued to the lender under Section 133(6) of the Act. The lender Matbar Singh had furnished the confirmation in the form of ledger account. The amount of Rs.5,00,000 was paid through cheque and there was corresponding entry in the bank account of the lender. Thus, with regard to the identity and genuineness of transaction, the Assessing Officer himself had not doubted during remand proceedings and only for the reason of not filing copy of ITR, creditworthiness of the lender was doubted. We are of the considered view that when the bank account statement of the lender was available with the Assessing Officer, then, that should have been the actual basis to examine the creditworthiness. The PAN of the lender was also available and from 5 ITA No.4230/Del/2024 that the learned tax authorities could have examined the return of the lender. Merely by alleging non-filing of copy of ITR in remand proceedings cannot be considered sufficient rebuttal of the onus discharged by the assessee with regard to the genuineness of the transaction of loan. The Form 16 for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 establishes that the assessee is a salaried employee having investments like PF, LIC and C.E.F. Thus, on the basis of material before us and the fact that the assessee was able to explain substantial part of the loan taken on interest from various persons doubting a meager part of it for failure to file ITR copy of one of the lenders is not justified to say and allege that assessee has not discharged the onus for the purpose of section 68 of the Act. We are inclined to sustain the ground and accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBRE JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07th February, 2025 Mohan Lal 6 ITA No.4230/Del/2024 Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "