AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, A.M.:
The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10221708 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of penalty order dated 13.02.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, engaged in the business of information technology and networking services. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 08.02.2021 accepting the income declared by the assessee thereafter, based on the information that the assessee has received unsecured loans of INR 2,15,26,056/- from M/s Sirsa Deposits and Advance Limited & Highrise Securities and Trading Pvt. Ltd. during the year under appeal. Assessment proceedings were initiated by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment order was passed wherein total addition of INR 2,14,26,056/- was made to the income declared by the assessee of INR 12,86,23,920/- and accordingly, total income of the assessee company was assessed at INR 15,01,49,976/-.
Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 23.12.2025, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the additions on merits however, the issue raised with respect to re-opening of assessment was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.
Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that assessee has not filed any details before AO however, before ld. CIT(A), it was claimed that details were filed with respect to establish the identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders so as to discharge the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is observed that ld. CIT(A) in para 7.1 to 7.3 of its order while deleting the addition made, has heavily placed reliance on the fact that the loans were repaid before the issue of notice for re-opening the assessment to the assessee. Nowhere in the appellate order, Ld. CIT(A) has discussed about the genuineness of transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the lenders which is the primary onus lies upon the assessee in the case where addition is made u/s 68 of the Act.
In view of the above discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to examine the creditworthiness of the lenders and decide the issue in accordance with law. With these directions, all Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.