Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur)
In the case of Dhanpat Raj Khatri vs. ITO (ITAT Jodhpur), the dispute revolves around the addition of Rs. 7,63,000/- to the assessee’s income by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was made on the grounds that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of certain cash deposits in his bank accounts.
Background: The assessee had deposited a total of Rs. 40,55,300/- in his two bank accounts during the assessment year in question. When questioned by the AO, the assessee attributed these deposits to various sources, including e-banking services, house rent, agricultural income, and unsecured loans. While the AO found some of these explanations satisfactory, he was not convinced about the genuineness of certain unsecured loans totaling Rs. 7,63,000/-.
Details of Unsecured Loans:
- Raj Kumar Khatri (Member of HUF): Rs. 53,000/-
- Nayan Khatri (Member of HUF): Rs. 50,000/-
- Khem Chand Khatri: Rs. 1,00,000/-
- Khem Chand Khatri HUF (Karta: Khem Chand Khatri): Rs. 5,60,000/-
The AO demanded evidence to substantiate these loans, including the lenders’ names, addresses, PANs, mode of payment, and affidavits or confirmations. The assessee failed to provide sufficient proof of the lenders’ creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the AO treated Rs. 7,63,000/- as unexplained income and added it to the assessee’s taxable income under Section 68 of the Act.
