M/s Vintage Wines vs Income Tax Officer

Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President :

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No.NFAC/2021-21/10360397 dated 30^th December, 2025. Assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon for the assessment year 2022-23 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 26^th March, 2024.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is a violation of principles of natural justice by the learned CIT(A) as no proper opportunity of presenting assessee's case was allowed to the assessee nor any personal hearing was granted despite specific requests. The assessee has raised 13 grounds, which are mainly on granting of opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice.

Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of resale of liquor. The only issue before us and before the Assessing Officer was that the assessee has received unsecured loans of ₹37,55,000/- from the following six parties as under:-

The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has submitted Aadhar numbers in respect of three lenders and ITR details in respect of two lenders. Apart from that, no details were provided. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the unsecured loans as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act amounting to ₹37,55,000/- and taxed the same under Section 115BB of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A).

Learned CIT(A), after noting the grounds of appeal and noting the findings of the Assessing Officer, observed that mere production of identity documents in regard to loan creditors is insufficient to discharge the complete onus under Section 68 of the Act. He also noted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohanakala – [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) and NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. – [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC), the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to go into the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition without going into the details. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee filed detailed written submissions which were filed before the learned CIT(A), wherein he has given the details of unsecured loans i.e., permanent account numbers and income tax details but did not provide bank statements of the creditors. Even now before us, the assessee has not provided the bank details of these creditors. Admittedly, the assessee has asked for personal hearing either through video conferencing or in person. Learned CIT(A) should have provided the same. The assessee has filed some of the details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors but all the details are not available. Without going into the merits and without speaking anything on merits and going through the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A), we are of the view that this matter needs fresh examination by the learned CIT(A) by allowing opportunity of hearing through video conferencing or in person, as the case may be. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) will allow the assessee to file all the details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of these creditors. This will not be treated as additional evidence. Learned CIT(A) will examine all the details and then pass a speaking order as per law. The order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.