Dashrath Balwant Barne HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Restores ₹50 Lakh Section 69A Addition for Fresh Verification After Assessee Produces Evidence of Loan Received on Behalf of HUF Karta
The Pune ITAT held that an addition of ₹50 lakh under section 69A required fresh examination, where the assessee produced documentary evidence before the Tribunal indicating that the amount was received from a partnership firm on behalf of the HUF’s Karta and was subsequently repaid. The Tribunal first condoned the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal, accepting that the assessee had established sufficient cause. On merits, it noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the credit of ₹50 lakh as unexplained because no documentary evidence had been furnished during the assessment to establish its nature and source. Before the Tribunal, however, the assessee produced a confirmation from M/s. Shree Anand Venkateshwara Construction, copies of the lender’s income-tax return, computation, bank statement, and evidence showing that the amount had been repaid in the subsequent financial year, contending that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction stood established. Since these documents had not been placed before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence, examine the true nature and source of the receipt, and decide the issue in accordance with law after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Cases Discussed
- Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (SC),judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382)
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (SC),(1987) 2 SCC 107
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 22.07.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
2. Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 168 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
3. The sole issue for our consideration is against the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act at 50,00,000/-.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF and did not file the regular return of income. Thereafter, based on the information from insight portal about the FDRs amounting to Rs.2,36,17,578/-, valid notice u/s.148 of the Act issued and served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.36,59,080/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer examined the bank statement and noticed that on 26.06.2014 there is credit entry of Rs.50.00 lakhs which the assessee stated to be not a taxable receipt as it is received on behalf of Karta. However, in absence of any documentary evidence explaining the source of said sum ld. Assessing Officer invoked section 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs.50.00 lakh and assessed income at Rs.86,59,080/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and failed to Ld.CT(A) has observed that assessee has not submitted any supporting documents regarding source of credit. Assessee has not explained how the amount of Rs.50.00 lakh is not taxable. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book running into 20 pages submitted that alleged sum was received from M/s. Shree Anand Venkateshwara Construction and that in the subsequent F.Y. 2015-16 the loan amount has been repaid on 23.07.2015. Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification and examining all the documents filed before this Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of CIT(A).
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before The sole issue for our consideration is addition u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.50.00 lakh. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the documentary evidence filed in the paper book stating that the alleged sum has been received from partnership firm namely M/s. Shree Anand Venkateshwara Construction on behalf of Karta of HUF. Confirmation letter from the alleged cash creditor is placed at page 7 of the paper book along with the copy of income tax return and computation. Further, bank statement of the cash creditor is also filed stating that the alleged sum has been paid subsequently in the F.Y. 2015-16. With the documents, assessee tried to plead that Identity, creditworthiness of the cash creditor and genuineness of the transaction is proved. We however considering the fact that these details were never filed before the Assessing Officer nor before ld.CIT(A) deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication for the limit purpose of examining the nature and source of the alleged sum and decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and on due consideration of details shall decide in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld. JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2026.
