When reading Section 68 Additions: Key Points and Impact, the important part is to keep the core facts intact while presenting the context in a clearer way for readers.
What This Update Means
Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.
Key Reader Takeaways
- The issue was deletion of additions on unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits.
- The tribunal upheld deletion, holding that a favourable remand report confirming…
- The case arose from reassessment proceedings where the Revenue challenged deletion of additions under section 68 relating to unsecured loans.
- The issue before the Tribunal was whether the loans reflected unexplained cash credits, given doubts about genuineness and creditworthiness.
LAMORC DIGITAL Context
The detailed section below preserves the source-backed information so readers can review the full context and important details in one place.
The case arose from reassessment proceedings where the Revenue challenged deletion of additions under section 68 relating to unsecured loans. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the loans reflected unexplained cash credits, given doubts about genuineness and creditworthiness. The assessee had furnished confirmations, and lenders duly responded to notices under section 133(6). Crucially, the Assessing Officer’s remand report acknowledged these facts without adverse remarks. Relying on this, the Tribunal held that once the AO himself submitted a favourable remand report, the Revenue could not be treated as aggrieved. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the assessee’s cross‑objection rendered infructuous.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1392/Del/2025 along with assessee’s cross objections C.O. Nos. 196/Del/2022, in A.Ys. 201112, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 02.12.2024, passed in DIN 85 Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1070807444(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive ground in appeal ITA No. 1392/Del/2025:-
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. of Rs.2,50,76,931/ – on account of addition made by the Assessing officer u/ s 68 even though the onus of evidence regarding unsecured loan has not been discharged including loan confirmation, creditworthiness of lender party despite opportunity given by the AO repeatedly.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,26,571/ – as it is apparent that loan taken by M/s Prenit World LLP of Rs. 1,50,26,571/ – was not a genuine transaction rather it was assessee’s own money rotating by the bogus penny stock company named Shardaraj Tradefin Ltd.
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,51,05,042/ – as it is apparent that loan taken by M/s Prenit World LLP of Rs. 3,51,05,042/ – was not a genuine transaction rather it was assessee’s own money rotating by the bogus penny stock company named the Konark Commerce & Industries Ltd.
4. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the additions as the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the creditworthiness and capacity of the alleged company for providing the loans to the assessee.
5. The appellant reserves right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal on or, before the date of disposal of appeal.”
3. We not advert to the Revenue’s sole endeavor in its instant appeal seeking to revive the Assessing Officer’s action inter alia making section 68 unexplained cash credits addition in the assessee’s hands which stands reverse in the CIT(A) detailed discussion.
4. Learned counsel representing assessee at this stage seeks to buttress the point for the sake of brevity that the CIT(A) impugned order has accepted the assessee’s explanation of genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned alleged unexplained cash credits going by the Assessing Officers remand report itself dated 11.03.2020 which duly forms part of records before us. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer had very fairly concluded in the said remand report that the assessee had inter alia filed confirmations of the parties concerned who duly responded to section 133(6) notices as well. There is not even as adverse comment in the said remand report against the impugned credits in the assessee’s case in other words.
5. Faced with this clinching factual position, we hereby quote CIT D.M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Karn)(HC ) and Smt. B. Jayalakshmi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Madras) that the Revenue could not be treated even as an aggrieved party once the learned Assessing Officer himself submits a favourable remand report in the assessee’s case. We thus find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievances directed against the learned CIT(A) detailed lower appellate discussion deleting the impugned section 68 unexplained cash credits addition made in the assessee’s hands in the light of the Assessing Officer’s remand report. Its appeal 392/Del/2025 stands rejected in very terms.
6. The assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 196/Del/2025 stands supportive of the CIT(A) impugned lower appellate findings stand rendered infructuous.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
7. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1392/Del/2025 is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 196/Del/2025 is dismissed as rendered infructuous in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th April, 2026.
Build a better, regular income stream with LAMORC DIGITAL. Join as our partner today.
Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.
This article is for general information based on available source information. It should not be considered legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.