RASHMINDER KAUR BHATIA,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

ITA 61/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which sustained various additions and disallowances made by the A.O under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The additions included disallowed expenses, VAT payable, and unexplained cash credits related to capital infusion and unsecured loans. The Tribunal considered the delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the assessee's lack of awareness due to her discontinued business and issues with her former chartered accountant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the A.O to re-examine the issues based on additional evidence provided by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469788 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar, New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 250; 251; 68; 27; 43B; 101

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.61/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia C-98, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur-492 101 (C.G.) PAN: ADEPB7779G .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 2 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 22.12.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred sustaining the addition of Rs.2,05,649 as expense disallowed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred sustaining the addition of Rs.1,79,372 as VAT Payable. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred sustaining the addition of Rs.55,03,897 as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 on account of capital infusion. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) has erred sustaining the addition of Rs.93,42,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 on account of unsecured loan. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT has erred in charging special rate tax u/s.115BBE on above additions u/s.68. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the present appeal 3 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 involves a delay of 69 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay involved in filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned for the reason that the assessee who had shut down her business in the year 2018 had gathered about the dismissal of her appeal by the CIT(Appeals) only when she had visited the bank i.e. State Bank of India, Main Branch and was informed about the attachment of her bank account. The Ld. AR submitted that though the notices intimating the fixation of appeal were dropped in the email account/mobile number of her earlier chartered accountant, viz. Shri Jatin Kala but he had not brought the same to her notice. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had for the last time filed her return of income in A.Y.2019-20 on 30.08.2019 and thereafter, had not filed any return for the succeeding years. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his aforesaid contention had drawn our attention to the “affidavit” dated 26.02.2024 filed by the assessee, which reads as under: 4 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing of the present appeal had occasioned for no malafide reasons or lackadaisical approach on the part of the assessee, therefore, the same in all fairness be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) objected to the seeking of the condonation of delay by the assessee appellant. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and considered the reasons leading to the delay of 69 days in filing of the present appeal. At the threshold, we may herein observe that as 5 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 deposed by the assessee, she had discontinued her business in the year 2018, and thereafter, in absence of any income had not filed her return of income since A.Y.2019-20. Also, it is deposed by the assessee that she had learnt about the dismissal of her appeal only on 15.02.2024 when she had visited the bank to gather certain details about her fixed deposits and was informed that her bank account was attached by the Income Tax Department. It is the claim of the assessee that as she had discontinued her business in the year 2018 and had for the last time filed the return of income for A.Y.2019-20 on 30.08.2019 and thereafter, in absence of any income had discontinued filing the same. We find substance in the claim of the assessee that as intimation regarding the dismissal of her appeal was dropped in the email account and mobile number of her earlier chartered accountant, viz. Shri Jatin Kala who had not brought the said fact to her notice, therefore, she had remained oblivion about the order passed by the first appellate authority. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that as there were bonafide reasons which had resulted to the delay of 69 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and engaged in trading of petroleum products under the name and style of M/s. K.S. Fuels, had filed return of income for A.Y.2017- 18 on 06.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.9,46,620/-. Subsequently, the 6 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 6. Assessment was, thereafter, completed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 22.12.2019, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,61,79,338/- after, inter alia, making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Disallowance on account of interest paid to bank Rs.2,05,649/- 2. Addition of VAT payable as mentioned in “Form 3CD” Rs.1,79,372/- 3. Addition u/s. 68 of the Act in the assessee’s capital account during the year under consideration Rs.55,03,897/- 4. Addition u/s. 68 of the Act of the amount claimed to have been received as unsecured loan received from four persons viz. Shri Gagandeep Singh Bhatia, Shri Harshdeep Singh Bhatia, Smt. Kulvinder Kaur Bhatia and Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur Rs.93,42,000/- 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on five occasions had failed to participate in the proceeding before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter was constrained to proceed with and adjudicate the matter after 7 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 considering the merits of the case. The CIT(Appeals) observing that the assessee had failed to place on record any material which could dislodge the additions/disallowances made in her case, therefore, upheld the same and had dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “3.1 All grounds of appeals are adjudicated together as the AO has blanketly disallowed the expenses for want of details and non appearance of the assessee. 3.2 I have carefully considered the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant and the statement of facts. In this case, appellant was given several opportunities to make submissions during appeal proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 250 as mentioned in Para 1.1 supra. These notices were served at the e-mail address of the appellant to which notices were issued on primary e-mail id on ITBA portal i.e. swaicwai©gmail.com. No e-mailed notice u/s 250 bounced. However, no written submissions were made by the assessee in response to the notices issued by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appeal cannot be kept pending for indefinite period without reasonable cause. It is observed that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed by it. All grounds of appeal are adjudicated together. 3.3 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 38 taxman.com 204 (P & H) have held that when notices were not received back, it raises a presumption of service under section 27 of General Clause Act, 1897. In such a situation when the notices have been served upon the Assessee at the addresses specified in the Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is clear that the Appellant has no intention to effectively pursue the Appeal. 3.4 In CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that \"preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it\". For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quoting decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 8 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below:- \"Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses.\" 3.5 The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as under:- \"That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or, for that matter of a judicial or quasi- judicial body. In the absence of the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non appearance of the complainant.\" The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the proposition that where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently absent and the tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Total non-compliance on the part of the appellant leaves no option other than deciding the appeal ex- parte, on merits of the case. 3.6 This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the assessment order u/s 143(3) claiming that the action of the Assessing Officer is not supported by facts and laws and that it is unjust. In such a situation, it is for the appellant to furnish the submissions with relevant evidence(s), case laws, if any, to support its claim. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. In this case, it is the appellant who has made the claim by filing the appeal. Thus, in cases where a particular receipt is sought to be taxed in terms, the initial onus is on the assessing officer to prove that it is taxable. Where, 9 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 however, the appellant claims exemption, the burden is on the appellant to prove it to be exempt. Same is the position in cases of all allowances, deductions, claims or loss, etc. since an appeal is nothing but the claim of the appellant to prove its contentions. The appellant has not availed any opportunity to do so. 3.7 Since the appellant has not presented any arguments or submissions or any paper filed in support of its claim, tilt. appeal is decided judiciously based on materials available on record. 3.8 I have perused the impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3). The appellant has not furnished any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings. Taking into account the entire gamut of this case, I see no reason to disturb the order of the assessing officer regarding assessment of the total income of the appellant at Rs.1,61,79,340/- confirming addition of Rs. 93,42,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed. 4. In the end result, the appeal is dismissed. Order passed under section 250 read with section 251 of the Act.” 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. The Ld. AR for the assessee at the threshold referred to an application filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, wherein liberty was sought for admission of 40 documents i.e., Page Nos.1 to 157 as “additional evidence”. The Ld. AR on being 10 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 queried as to why the aforesaid documents were not filed before the lower authorities, failed to come forth with any plausible explanation. 11. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which reads as under: “29. The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.” On a careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it transpires that it is only if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced. On a perusal of the case record, we find that there is no direction of the Tribunal for production of any such document. After considering the aforesaid facts, we are of a firm conviction that as the 11 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 assessee had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as to why the aforesaid documents that had been filed before us as “additional evidence” could not be filed before the lower authorities, therefore, we decline to admit the same. Accordingly, the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of additional evidence is rejected. 12. As the assessee by filing the present appeal has assailed before us the multiple additions/disallowances made by the A.O which thereafter had been sustained by the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’), and our adjudication on the said respective issues are being taken up in a chronological manner, as under: A) Disallowance of interest paid to bank: Rs.2,05,649/-. 13. Ostensibly, the A.O while framing the assessment observed that as a perusal of the “balance sheet” of the assessee revealed that she was holding four current accounts and had not raised any loan from a bank, therefore, in absence of any justification for raising a claim for deduction of interest paid to bank, the same was liable to be rejected. 14. Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, Ld. AR for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest paid to bank of Rs.2,05,649/- pertained to its Cash Credit account No.10822979712 12 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 with State Bank of India, Branch: Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the aforesaid bank account was closed by the assessee during the year under consideration i.e. on 03.10.2016, therefore, it was for the said reason that the same did not figure in her “balance sheet” for the year under consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that as the aforesaid interest expenditure was incurred by the assessee in the course of her business, therefore, the same was allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties as regards the aforesaid issue i.e. allowability of the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest paid to bank. Although the “balance sheet” of the assessee does not make any reference to the any loan/credit facility availed by the assessee from a bank to which the subject interest payment could be related, but at the same time, the Ld. AR’s contention that the same pertained to the assessee’s Cash Credit account No. 10822979712 held with the State Bank of India, Branch : Jaistambh Chowk that was closed during the year under consideration cannot be summarily discarded. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the subject matter in all fairness 13 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 requires to be restored to the file of the A.O with a direction to look into the maintainability of the aforesaid claim of the assessee. In case, the claim of the assessee is found to be in order, i.e. the interest expenditure pertained to the aforesaid bank account that was closed during the subject year itself, then the allowability of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the same shall be looked into u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. B) Addition of VAT Payable as mentioned in “Form 3CD”: Rs.1,79,372/- 17. The Ld. AR submitted that the VAT payable of Rs.1,79,372/- disclosed in the assessee’s “balance sheet” under the head “provisions”, Page 5 & 11 of APB, was comprised of, viz. (i) opening balance as on 01.04.2016: Rs.1,03,450/-.; and (ii) pertaining to the year under consideration: Rs.75,922/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the VAT payable of Rs.75,922/- (supra) had been offered by the assessee in her return of income for the year under consideration for disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act, Page 1 to 4 of APB. The Ld. AR further submitted that as the VAT payable of Rs.1,03,450/- did not pertain to the year under consideration, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have made any addition of the same while framing the assessment for the year under consideration. 14 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 19. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties qua the aforesaid issue, i.e. sustainability of the addition of VAT payable of Rs.1,79,372/- made by the A.O. Admittedly, a perusal of the return of income of the assessee, Page 1 to 4 of APB, reveal that she had offered an amount of Rs.75,922/- for disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act. The Ld. AR had stated that the VAT payable of Rs.1,03,450/-(supra) was the opening balance as on 01.04.2016, thus, the same could not have been added during the year under consideration u/s. 43B of the Act, and would require verification, therefore, the matter is set-aside to the file of the A.O with a direction to verify the factual position and re-adjudicate the same. In case the VAT payable of Rs.1,03,450/- is the opening balance as on 01.04.2016, and thus, does not pertain to the year under consideration, then no addition of the same would be called for in the hands of the assessee. As the assessee had already offered VAT payable of Rs.75,522/- as an addition u/s. 43B of the Act in her return of income for the subject year, therefore, no further addition of the said amount is called for in her hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. C) Addition u/s.68 of the Act of the addition to the assessee’s capital account during the year under consideration: Rs.55,03,897/- 15 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 20. Elaborating on the issue, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had during the year under consideration closed CC account No. 10822979712 held with the State Bank of India, Branch: Jaistambh Chowk of its proprietary concern, viz. M/s. K.S Fuels. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had in her personal account had thereafter raised a “term loan” of Rs.57 lacs as on 04.08.2016 with Laxmi Mahila Nagarik Sahakari Bank, Main Branch: Raipur. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that it was out of the aforesaid personal loan account that the assessee had infused an amount of Rs.55,03,897.11 towards her capital (as proprietor) with M/s. K.S. Fuels. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his aforesaid claim had taken us through the joint account that was held by the assessee and her husband with Laxmi Mahila Nagarik Sahakari Bank, Raipur, Page 128-129 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that now when the source of the addition of Rs.55,03,897.11 to the assessee’s capital account was clearly explained i.e. from her personal loan account, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to treat the same as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 21. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 22. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid issue in the backdrop of the contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties. As the claim of the assessee that the addition of Rs.55,03,897/- in 16 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 her “capital account” during the year under consideration was sourced out of the personal loan account which she had raised from Laxmi Mahila Nagarik Sahakari Bank, Branch : Raipur cannot be summarily accepted and would require verification, therefore, we are of the view that the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to the file of the A.O with a direction to look into the veracity of the same and re-adjudicate the issue. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. D) Addition u/s.68 of the Act of the amount claimed by the assesseeto have been received as unsecured loans from four persons, viz. Shri Gagandeep Singh Bhatia, Shri Harshdeep Singh Bhatia, Smt. Kulvinder Kaur Bhatia and Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur : Rs.93,42,000/- 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had during the year under consideration raised unsecured loans from her four relatives aggregating to Rs.93,42,000/-, as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Shri Gagandeep Singh Bhatia Rs.13,20,000/- 2. Shri Harshdeep Singh Bhatia Rs.52,000/- 3. Smt. Kulvinder Kaur Bhatia Rs.77,80,000/- 4. Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur 1,90,000/- Total Rs.93,42,000/- 17 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in the course of her business had raised unsecured loans from her aforementioned relatives. The Ld. AR submitted that the authenticity of the subject loans could safely be gathered from the fact that the loans raised from two lenders, viz. Shri Gagandeep Singh Bhatia : Rs.13,20,000/- and Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur : Rs.1,190,000/- were fully repaid during the year under consideration. Apropos the loan raised by the assessee during the year under consideration from Smt. Kulvinder Kaur Bhatia of Rs.77,80,000/-, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee had an opening balance (as on 01.04.2016) of Rs.7 lacs, out of which during the year, after raising of a fresh loan of Rs.61.90 lacs and repayment of an amount of Rs.61.90 lacs, was scaled down to Rs.22.90 lacs. As regards the loan raised from Shri Harshdeep Singh Bhatia of Rs.52,000/-, the Ld. AR submitted that there was an opening balance of Rs.14,08,826/- (CR) and after repayment of Rs. 12,000/- the balance outstanding towards the said person was scaled down to Rs.14,48,826/-. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings could not place on record confirmations of the aforementioned persons and thus, had failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders, as well as the genuineness of the loan transactions, therefore, the A.O had held the same as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that considering the fact that there were opening balances (in case of two 18 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 lenders), and part/full repayment of the said loans during the subject year itself in the case of aforementioned lenders, therefore, the said factual position support the authenticity of the loan transactions. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee had raised genuine loans from the aforementioned persons, therefore, the summarily treating of the same as unexplained cash credits by the A.O u/s. 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Ld. AR submitted that the matter in all fairness be restored to the file of the A.O with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after carrying out necessary verification. 24. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 25. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties on the aforesaid issue, i.e. recharacterizing of the loans raised by the assessee from her relatives as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act by the A.O. The fact that the assessee had opening balances in cases of two lenders and had further part/full repayment of the loans during the year under consideration leads credence to her claim that she had raised genuine loans from the aforementioned persons. We are of the view that as neither the assessee had discharged the onus that was cast upon her u/s. 68 of the Act nor the A.O had carried out any verification from the aforementioned lenders which would irrefutably evidence that no genuine loans were raised by the 19 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 assessee from the said persons, therefore, the matter in all fairness requires to be revisited by him. Accordingly, we herein direct the A.O to verify the assessee’s claim of having raised genuine loans from the aforementioned persons. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. 26. Grounds of appeal No.5 & 6 being general in nature are dismissed as not pressed. 27. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 27th day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 27th November, 2024. ***SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. 20 Rashmindar Kaur Bhatia Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ITA No. 61/RPR/2024 आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "