DCIT Vs Sunder Singh (ITAT Delhi)
Once Onus Discharged, 68 Can’t Survive: Confirmations, ITRs & Bank Proofs Enough: Unsecured Loan Additions Deleted-Land Advances Explained by Subsequent Sale Deeds:
In DCIT, Meerut Vs. Sunder Singh, ITA Nos.367 to 369/Del/2024 & 376/Del/2024, AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17, order dated 31.12.2025, Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeals and upheld deletion of additions u/s 68 relating to unsecured loans & advances against sale of land.
Pursuant to search u/s 132 on 05.02.2017, assessments were completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) making additions of ₹5.35 crore towards unsecured loans from three private companies & ₹36 lakh towards advances received against sale of plots, on ground of non-furnishing of complete evidence during assessment.
Before CIT(A), Assessee furnished confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements of lenders, audited financials, & sale deeds executed in subsequent years explaining land advances. Additional evidence was admitted u/r 46A & remand report was called from AO. AO, in remand proceedings, did not point out any infirmity in evidence & made no adverse comments. CIT(A) deleted additions holding that identity, creditworthiness & genuineness stood established & advances were later adjusted against registered sales.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s findings, observing that once Assessee discharged initial onus u/s 68 with cogent documentary evidence & Revenue failed to rebut same even in remand, additions could not survive. Reliance was placed on PCIT v. Amravati Infrastructure Developers (P&H HC). Accordingly, all Revenue appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were dismissed.
