S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 55.49 crore made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The bench of Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar ( Accountant Member) has observed that the AO had proceeded on closing balances instead of examining actual credits during the relevant year, which is legally impermissible. Additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures. The assessee, a real estate developer, had filed its return declaring a loss of ₹15.78 lakh. During scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the company had reflected short-term borrowings amounting to ₹55.49 crore in its financial statements. The AO held that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors and consequently treated the entire amount as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. A further addition of ₹15.37 lakh was also made under Section 36(1)(iii) towards disallowance of interest. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition under Section 68 but sustained the interest disallowance. Aggrieved by the relief granted on the Section 68 issue, the Revenue approached the Tribunal. The department argued that the assessee had not adequately discharged the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. It contended that mere production of PAN details and income tax returns was insufficient, especially where there was a significant mismatch between declared income and the size of loans advanced. The assessee contended that a substantial portion of the ₹55.49 crore represented opening balances brought forward from earlier years, and no addition under Section 68 could be made in the current assessment year in respect of such balances. It further submitted that only ₹30.46 crore was received during AY 2022–23. Out of this, ₹7.03 crore had already been repaid during the year. In one case, no fresh loan was received during the relevant year, yet the AO added the entire closing balance. Comprehensive documentary evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, income tax returns, and financial statements, was furnished to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The assessee also relied on multiple Tribunal rulings holding that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion or by taxing opening balances. The CIT(A), after a detailed party-wise analysis, found that certain lenders had substantial net worth and regular business turnover. In some cases, the AO had added the entire closing balance despite clear evidence that only part of the amount was received during the year. One lender had not advanced any loan in the relevant assessment year, yet the AO made an addition of the carried-forward balance. The appellate authority held that the AO had made the addition mechanically, without properly appreciating the factual matrix or applying mind to the distinction between fresh credits and opening balances. Accordingly, the addition of ₹55.49 crore was deleted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, observing that a significant portion of the loans represented opening balances, which cannot be taxed under Section 68 in the year under consideration. For fresh loans received during the year, the assessee had discharged the initial onus by furnishing documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Bench also held that the Revenue’s reliance on earlier High Court decisions was misplaced, as the factual matrix in the present case demonstrated adequate compliance with Section 68 requirements. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the department’s appeal. Consequently, the deletion of the Rs. 55.49 crore addition under Section 68 stands confirmed. Case Details Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Versus Supreme Lake View Bungalows Private Limited Citation: JURISHOUR-131-ITAT-2026(Mum) Case No.: I.T.A No.5735/Mum/2025 Date: 07/01/2026 Counsel For Appellant: Rakesh Joshi Counsel For Respondent: Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR) Click Here To Read Order Read More: Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as ‘Declared Service’ U/S 66E(e) of Finance Act 1994: CESTAT

9 IRS Officers Promoted to Commissioner Grade

More like this

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as ‘Declared Service’ U/S 66E(e) of Finance Act 1994: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories

S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as ‘Declared Service’ U/S 66E(e) of Finance Act 1994: CESTAT

9 IRS Officers Promoted to Commissioner Grade

More like this

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

Company in Liquidation Can’t Be Revived Solely for Real Estate Development: Bombay High Court

Idle Capacity Compensation Of Installed Production Capacity Not Taxable as ‘Declared Service’ U/S 66E(e) of Finance Act 1994: CESTAT

About us

Join Our Newsletter

Company

Categories