2026 (2) TMI 371 - HC - Income Tax

Genuineness of loan transaction and proof requirements in tax addition where repayment occurred within days; appeal dismissed

Addition under section 68 challenged on grounds that creditor had low reserves, showed meagre income, and the loan was largely repaid within days. The ... Addition u/s 68 - Reserve and surplus of the loan creditor was low and the loan creditor company had shown meager income - Partial amount was paid back within two days and remaining amount was paid back within a month. HELD THAT:- Simply because the loan has been paid within two days, it cannot be said with certitude that the loan was not a genuine loan and was only a paper entry. According to us, the other argument that no interest was paid to the creditor is also mis-placed because if the short-term loan for two-three days is taken, for whatever reason because of family or business relation or friendship, a creditor may advance the amount with lesser or even without interest. As a matter of fact the enquiry which ought to have been contended by the respondent-assessee is lacking in the case, which in instant case could have been – whether the creditor has license under the Bengal Money Lender’s Act, 1940 or not, and/or what is the relationship (friendly or business/blood relationship) due to which a creditor situate in Kolkata had advanced such a huge amount of loan to the respondent-assessee situate in Delhi. Appeal dismissed. Issues: Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting additions made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of alleged loans, having regard to the evidence of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and the remand proceedings.Analysis: The Tribunal examined remand-stage enquiries, confirmations, ITR acknowledgements, audited financial statements and bank statements produced by the creditors and found that identity and creditworthiness were established; transactions were routed through account-payee cheques and loans were repaid through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that creditworthiness under Section 68 is not confined to current year income and may include net worth and other sources. The short tenure of repayment (two days) and absence of interest paid were treated as not determinative of sham transactions, since short-term interest-free or low-interest advances may arise from business or personal relations. The record also shows that the Assessing Officer did not undertake certain enquiries (for example regarding money-lender licensing or the nature of relationship between parties) which the Court considered could have been pursued before drawing adverse inference. The matter thus involved primary findings of fact and appreciation of evidence on which the Tribunal had taken a view after remand.Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions were established are upheld; there is no warrant for interference with the Tribunal's order deleting the additions under Section 68. The appeal is dismissed and the deletion sustained in favour of the assessee.