Jay Kundan Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Section 68 Cannot Tax Past-Year Figures; Third-Party Books Not Required from Assessee—Identity & Genuineness Already Proved
Assessee’s assessment u/s 143(3) resulted in additions of Rs.22,45,300 u/s 68 towards unsecured loans, including Rs.6,45,300 being difference in loan balance with his father, Shri Kundan Bhatt. Tribunal noted from ledger accounts & earlier assessment orders (AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20) that the same difference of Rs.6,45,300 was repeatedly added in past years but deleted by CIT(A) as it did not arise from any transactions of the relevant year. Tribunal held that since the credit did not pertain to AY 2020-21, addition cannot be sustained.
On Rs.16,00,000 borrowed from three parties, Assessee furnished loan confirmations, ITR acknowledgements & bank statements of lenders. Remand report admitted that these documents had been filed, & AO neither conducted enquiries u/s 133(6)/131 nor pointed out discrepancies. Tribunal observed that the Assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving identity, creditworthiness & genuineness, relying on Orissa Corporation, Ami Industries & Rohini Builders. Repayment of two loans remained undisputed. AO’s insistence on third-party documents (books, GST returns, employee details, truck bills etc.) was held unjustified.
Tribunal deleted the entire Rs.22,45,300 addition & allowed the appeal in full.
