Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹1 Crore Addition on Unsecured Loan from Alleged Hawala Operator

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 7962
Case Name
Umakant Agrawal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2011-12
Advertisement


Umakant Agrawal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹1 Crore Section 68 Addition – Loan from Alleged “Hawala Operator” Found Genuine-

Hawala Tag Alone Insufficient – Generic Investigation Report Not Enough- Loan with Banking Trail & TDS Found Genuine

Facts  

  • Assessee engaged in trading & commission business. ROI filed (30.09.2011) declaring income ₹2.09 Cr.
  • Case reopened u/s 147 based on Investigation Wing report that creditor Rajendra Drolia (M/s Sai Traders) was a hawala operator giving accommodation entries.
  • AO held ₹1 Cr unsecured loan received (March 2011) was assessee’s own unaccounted money routed back. Added u/s 68 & initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
  • CIT(A) confirmed addition, citing non-production of creditor, failed 133(6) enquiry & cancellation of creditor’s VAT TIN

Assessee’s Defence

  • Produced PAN, ITRs, bank statements, confirmations, loan ledger.
  • Loan advanced in 3 tranches (12–15 March 2011) via account-payee cheques.
  • Interest @18% regularly paid with TDS deducted & reported in quarterly returns.
  • Entire principal repaid in April 2012, long before reopening in 2018.
  • No cash deposits or circular fund flows linked to assessee.

Tribunal’s Observations/ Decision

  • Section 68 requires assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness & genuineness.
  • Assessee discharged burden:
  • Identity – creditor’s PAN & ITRs on record.
  • Creditworthiness – lender’s bank account had adequate balances before each transfer, not cash-funded.
  • Genuineness – loan through banking channel, commercial interest with TDS, repayment in 2012.
  • AO relied only on generic label “hawala operator” & creditor’s non-traceability years later. That may justify reopening, but not conclusive to sustain addition if primary documents remain unchallenged.
  • No evidence of cash trail, round-tripping, or artificial fund layering shown by Revenue.
  • Later cancellation of VAT TIN cannot retroactively taint genuine loan transaction duly documented & repaid
  • Addition of ₹1 Cr u/s 68 deleted in full.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,139

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.