2021 (10) TMI 968 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained unsecured loans - assessee challenged the addition claiming that these were business loans - assessee argued as no adequate opportunity provided to prove the claim - HELD THAT - It is seen that as per record more than adequate opportunity had been made available to the assessee before the Assessing Officer and similarly even before the Ld. CIT(A) there was adequate opportunity and now even before the ITAT the assessee has been given more than adequate opportunity and still no evidence has been placed by the assessee to assail let alone effectively assail the findings arrived at. Accordingly, considering the facts as available and the position of law no interference in the impugned order is warranted. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 22.03.2019 of CIT(Appeals), New Delhi for 2015-16 assessment year.
- Unrepresented assessee in multiple hearings.
- Addition of ?29,00,000 under section 68 of Loan Taken challenged.
- Consideration of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules.
- Confirmation of addition by ITAT.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an unrepresented assessee, challenged the order of CIT(A) regarding the addition of ?29,00,000 under section 68 of Loan Taken. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the unsecured loans received. The appellant's grounds of appeal included disputing the judgment against facts and law, questioning the confirmation of the addition by the Assessing Officer, and requesting to amend grounds of appeal.

2. The Senior DR argued that the addition should be confirmed as the appellant failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) had allowed relief on the addition of ?10 lakhs, but the remaining amount of ?29 lakhs lacked supporting evidence. The Senior DR relied on legal precedents to support the decision to sustain the addition based on the lack of concrete evidence provided by the appellant.

3. The ITAT reviewed the material on record, noting the appellant's declared loss and business activities. The addition of ?39 lakhs was made due to unexplained unsecured loans from two parties. The CIT(A) partially granted relief based on additional evidence submitted under Rule 46A of IT Rules, confirming the ?10 lakhs loan but sustaining the ?29 lakhs addition due to lack of satisfactory explanations.

4. The ITAT upheld the decision to confirm the addition of ?29,00,000 as the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction were not adequately explained by the appellant. Despite claims of transactions through banking channels, no concrete evidence or confirmations were provided. The ITAT emphasized that the lack of interest on the loans and absence of source verification further weakened the appellant's case. Citing legal precedents, the ITAT concluded that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof required under section 68 of the Act.

5. The ITAT dismissed the grounds raised by the appellant, considering the Senior DR's arguments and the legal principles cited. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, as the appellant had multiple opportunities to present evidence but failed to do so effectively. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, confirming the addition of ?29,00,000.