2023 (3) TMI 1044 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan - addition made towards the said loan treating the same as unexplained was not warranted, hence deleted the addition - HELD THAT - We note that loan and advance is getting reflected in the Individual Balance Sheet as well as in the balance sheet of M/s Shri Kuberji Developers therefore, it is not a case that assessee has concealed the details of such loan. Based on this factual position, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid addition. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of addition of unaccounted unsecured loan u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The key issues include the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, lack of corroborative evidence, non-disclosure in the return of income, and treatment of unsecured loan as unexplained.

Summary:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Surat, arising from an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for AY 2013-14. The Revenue contended that the addition of Rs.2,08,17,210/- on account of unaccounted unsecured loan was erroneously deleted by the CIT(A). The facts revealed that the assessee had taken an unsecured loan for purchasing land, which was not reflected in the return of income.

The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 and added the unsecured loan amount to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) later deleted this addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that the loan was not properly accounted for in the balance sheet, questioning the authenticity of the unaudited balance sheet and submissions by the assessee.

In response, the assessee clarified that the loan was accounted for in the balance sheet under "Creditors for Others," as evidenced by ledger accounts and balance sheets. The CIT(A) upheld the deletion of the addition, noting that the loan was reflected in both the individual and firm's balance sheets. The Tribunal concurred, finding no concealment of the loan details and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of the unsecured loan, as it was duly reflected in the balance sheets, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.