TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2016-17 on 15-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 35,99,630/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs. 8,28,60,000/- from Rudra Enterprise and made repayment of Rs. 1,86 crores during the year. For the remaining outstanding loan, the assessee has not given proper explanation, the same was added as the unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. On appeal against that assessment order, the assessee explained that the loan is continuing one as on 31-03-2016 and had been repaid back in April 2016 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 31.03.2016. It is also revealed from the assessment order that the appellant had made repayment of Rs. 1,86,00,000/- on 11.03.2016. thus, the amount outstanding as on 31.03.2016 was Rs. 6,42,60,000/- and the A.O. had made only addition of outstanding amount but not for the whole unsecured loan received from M/s. Rudra Enterprise, which shows that the A.O. himself admitted the genuineness of the lender M/s. Rudra Enterprise. 4.4 Further, on perusal of ledger account for A.Y.2016-17 & A.Y.2017-18, it is clearly seen that the appellant was engaged in regular transaction with the lender party M/s. Rudra Enterprise. Further, the appellant had repaid the entire outstanding unsecured loan of Rs. 6,42,60,000/- on 05.04.2016 & 08.04.2016 to M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he A.O. is not sustainable in law and heavily relied upon Jurisdictional High Court Judgments in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251, CIT vs. Shri Mahavir Crimpers [2018] 95 taxmann.com 323 and Rohini Builders and ITO vs. Shanti Enterprise [2016] 71 taxmann.com 275. 5.1. Thus the Ld. A.R. argued that the onus on the assessee lies only to the extent of establishing the identity of the lenders, whereas in the present case the assessee has submitted the evidences to establish prima facie, the name of the lender, PAN Number, full Address, unsecured loan received during the year, contra confirmations, bank statements, Income-tax returns, interest amount, opening balance, loans received during the year a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iate TDS. Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act is not sustainable in law. 7.1. Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (cited supra) it was held as follows: Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Loans] -Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143(3) wherein he made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one 'IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of MA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan of Rs. 1.60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year to be correct. We take into account all these facts and judicial precedents to affirm CIT(A)'s findings under challenge deleting the impugned addition. This first substantive ground is accordingly declined." 7.3. In the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) wherein it has been h....