Loan confirmations and bank records can defeat unexplained cash credit addition when identity, creditworthiness and genuineness are established.

Where an assessee produces loan confirmations, bank statements, return filings and other primary evidence showing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of unsecured lenders, an addition as unexplained cash credit cannot be sustained unless the Revenue brings cogent contrary material; the loan addition was therefore not justified. Once the loans were accepted as genuine, the related interest disallowance, being entirely consequential, also ceased to survive and was rightly deleted. The stated ratio is that section 68 cannot be invoked on mere deficiencies or non-response by some lenders when the assessee has discharged the initial evidentiary burden, and a derivative interest disallowance fails with the underlying addition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unsecured loans received by the assessee were liable to be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the interest paid on such unsecured loans was liable to be disallowed.

Issue (i): Whether the unsecured loans received by the assessee were liable to be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee furnished loan confirmations, bank statements, return filings and other documentary material to establish the identity of the lenders, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The additions were made mainly because some lenders did not fully respond to notices and the Assessing Officer found deficiencies in the financial particulars, but no contrary material was brought to show that the loans were bogus or accommodation entries. The appellate authority found that the evidentiary burden initially cast on the assessee stood discharged and that the Assessing Officer had not established any concrete basis to reject the explanation.

Conclusion: The unsecured loans could not be treated as unexplained cash credits and the deletion of the addition was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the interest paid on such unsecured loans was liable to be disallowed.

Analysis: The disallowance of interest was entirely dependent on the addition of the unsecured loans. Once the loans themselves were accepted as genuine and explained, the basis for disallowing the related interest ceased to survive.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the deletion of both the loan addition and the consequential interest disallowance was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee produces primary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions, and the Revenue brings no cogent contrary material, an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot stand, and a consequential interest disallowance based solely on that addition also fails.

---