ITAT allows appeal against Section 68 addition for unsecured loans despite suspicious timing of credits

The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had treated certain loan transactions as suspicious due to immediate credits of exact amounts few days before loans were given to assessee. Though assessee claimed credits were sourced from family members/HUF, confirmations were lacking. The ITAT held that when assessee establishes creditor identity and Revenue accepts genuineness of part transactions, remaining transactions cannot be disbelieved on mere suspicion. Revenue must provide substantive evidence beyond coincidental timing of credits and loans, especially when partial transactions from same creditor are accepted as genuine.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The appeal against the order of CIT(A)-16, New Delhi u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi regarding unsecured loans, foreign remittance, GP rate, and addition of Rs 1.45 crore and Rs 4,78,864.

Unsecured Loans Issue:
The AO added Rs 1.45 crore of unsecured loans u/s 68. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs 65,00,000, stating the appellant failed to establish the genuineness of certain loans. However, the addition on account of fall in gross profits was deleted.

Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 65,00,000 on account of unsecured loans u/s 68, alleging incorrect facts and findings without granting cross-examination. The action of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition was deemed bad in law. Additionally, the charging of interest u/s 234B & 234D was contested.

Judgment:
The AR argued that identifiable lenders confirmed loans, provided bank statements, and tax returns, citing relevant case laws. The AR emphasized that once the depositor is identified, the source of the source need not be explored. The DR supported the AO's findings.

Decision on Loans Issue:
The Id. CIT(A) considered certain loan transactions suspicious due to immediate credits before loans were given. The Bench found the burden was discharged partly by the assessee, and the Revenue failed to substantiate suspicions with substantive evidence. Therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) were not sustained, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order pronounced on 27.05.2024 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI, with the addition on unsecured loans u/s 68 being overturned due to lack of substantive evidence supporting suspicions raised by the Revenue.

---