TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reassessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed under the provisions of section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" in short) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short "CIT(A)"] confirming the order passed under the provisions of section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 6. Without prejudice the learned Assessing Officer erred in law in levying interest under the provisions of section 234A, section 234B and section 234F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating the penal provisions under section 271AAC of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual in whose case information was received that he had deposited Rs.4,044,500 in his bank account, earned interest other than interest on securities amounting to Rs.109,479, purchased immovable property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuineness of the loans and made an addition of Rs.19,10,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee's total income was assessed at Rs.20,19,479, as against the returned income of Rs.1,09,479. 8. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) issued six notices to the assessee; however, except for one request seeking a short adjournment, there was no effective compliance. The learned CIT(A) therefore proceeded to pass an ex parte order and confirmed the addition of Rs.19,10,000. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. I have carefully heard Shri Sheeresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant, and Shri Darshan Bhat, Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransactions aggregating to Rs.19,10,000 and, therefore, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer was without merit. The learned authorised representatives also referred to page 185 of the paper book, where the bank statement reflected repayment of the said loans. 11. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee had obtained loans aggregating to Rs.19,10,000 from two friends and had not repaid them for nearly four years despite receiving substantial compensation. According to him, these facts raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the loans and showed that the requirements of section 68 of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ju on 23 April 2026. Both amounts were credited to the assessee's bank account through RTGS, and the bank records reflected the names of the respective lenders. The assessee also produced confirmations from both lenders, who stated that the loans were interest-free unsecured loans advanced on account of their long-standing association and trust with the assessee. They confirmed that they had known the assessee since childhood, that the loans were advanced through banking channels for house construction, agricultural activities, and medical needs, and that the amounts remained outstanding. They further explained that, owing to the assessee's financial difficulties and health issues, they had not insisted on recovery. They also provided detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 16. It is true that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) despite six notices. However, the assessee has produced extensive medical records evidencing his illness, which satisfactorily explains his failure to appear. We have nevertheless decided the issue on the basis of the material placed before the learned Assessing Officer, which was also available to the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) could have disposed of the appeal by appreciating the same material, but failed to do so. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to restore the matter to the file of the lower authorities. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that remand should not be ordered....