Unexplained loan receipts under Section 68: court upholds addition where assessee fails to prove genuineness and onus remains on assessee.

Addition under Section 68 was sustained because the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of an unsecured loan agreement from a private company; the agreement's terms (no interest obligation, vague repayment on mutually agreed terms) and absence of supporting evidence left the initial onus unmet, so the income was added. The court rejected the contention that the AO should have issued notices to the struck off lender as futile given non availability of material. The Tribunal's view that remission principles did not apply was affirmed because no legally enforceable liability had arisen to be remitted. Decision adverse to the assessee.

---

---

Issues involved:
The present appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appellant/assessee seeks to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of a loan amount to the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Loan Transaction and Assessment Proceedings:
The appellant/assessee received a loan of Rs.14,00,000 from Gee Wire Pvt. Ltd (GWPL), which was added to their income by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The loan agreement raised doubts as it did not require the appellant/assessee to pay any interest to GWPL and allowed repayment after four years in three annual installments.

2. Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the "triple test" for discharging the onus was satisfied, establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. They claimed that since GWPL was struck off from the Register of Companies, they could not provide further information about the lender.

3. Arguments of the Respondent:
The respondent contended that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of GWPL. They argued that Section 41(1) of the Act should apply due to remission of liability, which was not fully appreciated by the authorities.

4. Court's Analysis and Decision:
The court found the loan agreement raised more questions than answers and noted that the appellant did not take steps to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The court held that the initial onus was not discharged by the appellant and rejected the argument that Section 41(1) applied instead of Section 68. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order, closing the appeal and pending applications.

5. Conclusion:
The court upheld the addition of the loan amount to the appellant's income, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction with GWPL. The court's decision was based on the failure of the appellant to meet the burden of proof required under the Income Tax Act.

---