Unexplained loan addition and reassessment fail where identity, banking trail, and confirmed transaction are established without fresh tangible material.

An addition under section 68 for an alleged unexplained loan was unsustainable where the assessee proved the lender's identity, filed confirmation, showed banking-channel transfer, and the lender admitted the transaction; the Revenue, without cogent material showing that the assessee's own unexplained money had been routed back or rebutting creditworthiness and genuineness, could not sustain the addition. Reassessment for the later year was also invalid because it was based on the same material already examined in the original section 143(3) assessment and no fresh tangible material had emerged; reopening on that basis amounted to a mere change of opinion and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made under section 68 for the alleged unexplained loan was sustainable; (ii) whether the reassessment initiated for the later assessment year was valid in the absence of tangible material.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made under section 68 for the alleged unexplained loan was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had shown the lender's identity, filed confirmation, the loan had been routed through banking channels, and the lender had admitted the transaction in sworn statement. In such circumstances, the assessee had discharged the primary burden under section 68. The revenue did not establish by further enquiry that the assessee's own unexplained money had been routed back as a loan. Mere reference to the lender's turnover, without a fact-based finding on lack of creditworthiness or genuineness, was insufficient to sustain the addition.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment initiated for the later assessment year was valid in the absence of tangible material.

Analysis: The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and the reopening was made within four years on the same material already available during the original proceedings. No new tangible material was shown to have come into possession of the Assessing Officer. Reopening on the same material amounted to a change of opinion and a review exercise, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The reassessment was bad in law and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both the addition issue and the validity of reassessment, and the connected merits for the later year did not survive for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition under section 68 cannot survive once the assessee has established the lender's identity, transaction through banking channels, and a confirmed loan, unless the revenue brings cogent material to disprove creditworthiness or genuineness; similarly, reassessment cannot be sustained on the basis of the same material already examined in the original assessment absent fresh tangible material.

---