Manikjeet Singh Kals vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals

“A. BECAUSE the Ld. AO erred in law and fact by adding Rs.3,09,03,270/- under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, without bringing any adverse material evidence on record. The Ld. CIT(A), while partly allowing the Appeal, mechanically upheld 22,98,71,225/- of the said addition, failing to appreciate the comprehensive documentary evidence furnished by the Appellant, which clearly discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The addition has been sustained based purely on conjecture and surmise, contrary to the law.

B. BECAUSE no adverse material has been brought on record in respect of any of the lenders namely, Mr. Amanjeet Singh Khurana, Late Sh. Avtar Singh Khurana, Greenfinch Team Management Pvt. Ltd., Mrs. Pooja Kulshrestha, and Surya Team Management Pvt. Ltd. either by the Ld. Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A), who failed to appreciate or rebut the relevant documentary evidence duly furnished by the Appellant, unequivocally discharging its burden u/s 68 of the Act by establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans totalling ₹2,81,40,894/-, all without any cogent evidence, substantive inquiry, or rebuttal, treating the loans as non-genuine solely on presumptive and inconsequential observations, depicting clear non-application of mind.

Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹2,81,40,894/- under Section 68, rendering the impugned order illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside.

C. BECAUSE appellant had duly furnished all requisite documents before both the Ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), including confirmation letters, bank statements, ITRs (for relevant assessment years), computations of income, ledgers, and audited balance sheets (where applicable), all of which were admitted on record and never rejected. These documents unequivocally establish:

•

Identity of each creditor;

•

Creditworthiness, supported by ITRs, banking transactions, and financial statements;

•

Genuineness of the transactions, as all loans were routed through account payee banking channels, with substantial portions (over 70-80% in most cases) repaid in the same year.

Therefore, appellant has thereby discharged its initial burden under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to shift the onus to the revenue authorities for further inquiry under Sections 131 or 133(6), and instead relied on minor discrepancies such as ITRs for adjacent assessment years, bank statement periods, low returned incomes, absence of reserves/surplus in balance sheets, or the lender's advanced age/death none of which constitute adverse material warranting addition.

Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant now submits additional evidence including the ITR for A.Y. 2018-19, the relevant page of the bank statement showing the advance loan entry of Rs. 5,00,000/-from Mr. Amanjeet Singh Khurana, the bank statement of Late Shri Avtar Singh Khurana showing receipts of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Bharat Facilities, and the bank statement of Mrs. Pooja Kulshrestha for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Bench. These documents further substantiate the creditworthiness of the lenders.

D. BECAUSE the Impugned Order is perverse, arbitrary, illegal, and unreasonable, as it fails to consider the material evidence on record, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Ld. CIT(A) exhibited non-application of mind by upholding the addition of Rs. 2,98,71,225/- under Section 68 without adequate basis while relevant documentary evidence was duly furnished by the Appellant, unequivocally discharging its burden;

The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter, withdraw or forgo any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing with the leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal.”