Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Lord Krishna Developers & Buiders ,New ... vs Ito Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut on 30 March, 2026
P a g e |1
4674 & 5396/Del/2025
Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"B" BENCH, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.4674/Del/2025
(Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Lord Krishna Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer
& Builders Siwaya Ward 1(2)(4)
Jamaullah Pur, Daurala Aaykar Bhawan Bhainsali
Meerut - 250001 (UP) Ground, Meerut Cantt.
Meerut, 250001, UP
थायीले खासं . /जीआइआरसं . /PAN/GIR No: AAEFL6336N
Appellant .. Respondent
ITA No.5396/Del/2025
(Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Income Tax Officer Vs. Lord Krishna Developers
Aaykar Bhawan Bhainsali & Builders,
Ground, Meerut Cantt. Siwaya Daurala
Meerut, 250001, UP Meerut - 250110 (UP)
थायीले खासं . /जीआइआरसं . /PAN/GIR No: AAEFL6336N
Appellant .. Respondent
Appellant by : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv.
Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.
DR
Date of Hearing 29.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement 30.03.2026
P a g e |2
4674 & 5396/Del/2025
Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee and revenue against the common order dated 27.06.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. 'FAA') in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077885974(1) arising out of the order dated 31.12.2019 u/s143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by the NaFAC, New Delhi for AY: 2017-18.
2. The appellant firm is engaged in developing a residential colony in the name and style of "Kanha Green City" situated at Siwaya Jamaullahpur, Daurala, Meerut and assessee's return was taken up for scrutiny for examination unsecured loans and based upon the reply of the assessee addition was made at Rs.4,45,11,774/- in regard to loans received from 11 persons. Addition was also made on account of interest estimated at 12% on interest-free loan advanced to partners of Rs 27,60,000/-and assessee had succeeded before ld. CIT(A) wherein the addition was deleted to the extent of sustaining addition of Rs. 78,19,306/-. However,disallowance of interest was P a g e |3 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) confirmed. The impugned order shows that the benefit was given by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of remand report given by the assessing officer.
3. Accordingly, both the department and assessee are in appeal and the respective appeal are adjudicated as follows.
Grounds in ITA No. 4674/Del/2025 (Assessee's appeal) "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.78,19,306 (Rs.4,45,11,774 less Rs.3,66,92,468) out of total addition aggregating to Rs.4,45,11,774 u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") as made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits in the books of accounts of the Appellant. At any rate, without prejudice, such addition of Rs.78,19,306 as confirmed is very excessive.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.27,60,000 on account of interest estimated @12% on interest free loan advanced to partners. At any rate, without prejudice, such disallowance of interest of Rs.27,60,000 as confirmed is very excessive. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal. 3.1 Grounds no. 1 in appeal of assesse challenge confirmation the addition of loans received from Karan Pahwa of Rs. 19,60,656/-, Omveer Singh of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Prabhat Kumar Jha of Rs. 24,85,700/- Stuti Kalra of Rs.27,51,950/-, Tushar Dixit of Rs. 2,91,000/-, Anil Sharma of Rs 80,000/- and Ankur Sharma of Rs. 50,000/- In regard to these to individuals the issue of each is discussed individually on basis of documentary evidences filed by assesse, P a g e |4 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) 3.2 In case of Karan Pahwa the claim of assessee is that no fresh loan was raised from Karan Pahwa during the year under consideration. To substantiate the submissions, the assesse provided copy of ledger A/c of Karan Pahwa in the books of the Appellant for the year under consideration (now placed at page 40 of PB) as filed beforeAO from which it is evident that there was an opening credit balance of Rs.22,50,000 as on 01/04/2016 out of which amount aggregating to Rs.2,89,344 was paid through proper banking channels during the year under consideration and accordingly there was a closing credit balance of Rs. 19,60,656 as on 31/03/2017. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed such addition without commenting or controverting the above submissions/documentary evidences. Thus in the absence of any fresh loan raised during the year under consideration from Karan Pahwa, therefore, the addition of Rs.19,60,656 u/s 68 deserves to be deleted as there was no credit entry in books from source of Karan Pahwa.
3.2 In case of Omavir Singh, addition of Rs.2,00,000 was sustained and assessee claims that Omvir Singh had advances loan having taken loan from one Naresh Kumar Chowdhary. Assesse provided following evidences;
P a g e |5 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
(i) Confirmatory certificate dated 05/01/2023 of Omavir Singh (now placed at page 41 of PB) confirming that he raised a loan of Rs.2,00,000 from Sh. Naresh Kumar Chaudhary through bank transfer on 08/03/2017 which was advanced to the Appellant firm on the same date through NEFT. (Additional Evidence).
(ii) Copy of ledger A/c of Omavir Singh in the books of the Appellant for the year under consideration is (now placed at page 42 of PB) as filed before AO.
(iii) Relevant copy of SBI Bank statement (Mawana) of Omavir Singh is (now placed at pages 43-45 of PB) as filed before AO.
(iv) Copy of Voter ID Card of Omavir Singh is (now placed at page 46 of PB) as filed before AO.
(v) Confirmatory certificate dated 04/01/2023 of Naresh Kumar Chaudhary is (now placed at page 47 of PB).
P a g e |6 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
(vi) Relevant copy of SBI Bank statement (Ghaziabad) of Naresh Kumar Chaudhary is (now placed at page 48-52 of PB).
(vii) Copies of PAN and Aadhar Cards of Naresh Kumar Chaudhary are (now placed at pages 53-54 of PB
(viii) Relevant statement of Bank of Baroda of the Appellant firm is (now placed at pages 55 of PB) reflecting loan of Rs.2,00,000 received on 08/03/2017 from Omavir Singh as filed before AO.
3.3 The AO in the Remand Report discredited the evidences by holding that the confirmatory letter obtained on 04/01/2023 suggest that Naresh Chowdhary has given loan to Mr. Omveer Singh only, no reason has been given which connects assessee to Mr. Naresh Kumar Chaudhary. Thus the AO has rejected thesubmissions/documentary evidence with regard to loan of Rs.2,00,000 only on the ground that no reason has been given as to why loan was given by Sh. Naresh Kumar to Sh. Omveer Singh who in turn had given loan to the Appellant. In deed giving loan by borrowing is a strange P a g e |7 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) circumstance but not conclusive to hold that assesse has failed to discharge burden. The addition deserved to be deleted.
3.4 In case of Prabhat Kumar Jha, loan is of Rs.24,85,700assessee has claimed that lender has raised a housing loan and to establish the same following evidences were filed;
(i) Confirmatory certificate dated 08/01/2023 of Prabhat Kumar Jha is (now placed at page 56 of PB) confirming that he raised housing loan of Rs.26,76,950 from ICICI Bank, Delhi on 10/08/2016 out of which Rs.26,71,200 was advanced vide cheque to the Appellant firm.
(ii) Copy of ledger A/c of Prabhat Kumar Jha in the books of the Appellant for the year under consideration is (now placed at page 57 of PB) filed before
(iii) Relevant /CICI bank statement (Loan A/c) of Prabhat Kumar Jha is (now placed at page 58 of PB) as filed before AO.
(iv) Relevant Canara Bank, statement (Meerut) of the Appellant firm is (now placed at page 59 of PB) as filed before AO P a g e |8 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) reflecting that the above loan of Rs.26,71,200 was received on 12/08/2016 from Prabhat Kumar Jha.
3.5 The AO in remand report has not made any comments with regard to Prabhat Kumar Jha and the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed such addition without controverting or disproving the above submissions/documentary evidences or without giving a specific finding as to why such addition is being confirmed. At the same time we find that the above referred documentary evidences make it evident that the Assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving the identity, genuineness and also thecreditworthiness of Sh. Prabhat Kumar Jha by proving source of source of loan i.e. housing loan of Rs.26,76,950 raised by Sh. Prabhat Kumar Jha from ICICI Bank, Delhi on 10/08/2016 out of which he advanced Rs.26,71,200 vide cheque to the Appellant firm. In fact on similar facts where source of source of loan was housing loan raised from banks, ld. CIT(A) has deleted such additions.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs.24,85,700 deserves to be deleted.
P a g e |9 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) 3.6. In case of Stuti Kalra the loan advanced by her was Rs.27,51,950 and assesse had pleaded she too has raised housing loan to lend it to assessee. To substantiate same assesse filed following evidences;
(i) Confirmatory certificate dated 15/12/2022 of Stuti Kalra is (now placed at page 60 of PB) certifying that she had raised housing loan of Rs.27,68,000 from HDFC Ltd., Meerut out of which Rs.23,00,000 was advanced vide cheque on 11/06/2016 and Rs.4,68,000 was advanced vide cheque on 12/07/2016 to the Appellant firm.
(ii) Copy of ledger A/c of Stuti Kalra in the books of the Appellant for the year under consideration is (now placed at page 61 of PB) filed before AO.
(iii) Relevant HDFC Ltd. loan statements (Meerut) of Stuti Kalra is (now placed at pages 62-64 of PB) as filed before AO.
(iv) Copy of PAN and Aadhar cards of Stuti Kara is (now placed at pages 65-67 of PB) as filed before AO.
P a g e | 10 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
(v) Copy of ITR for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 of Stuti Kalra are (now placed at pages 68-70 of PB) as filed before AO.
(vi) Relevant Canara bank statement (Meerut) of the Appellant firm are (now placed at page 71-72 of PB) reflecting loan of Rs.23,00,000 received on 16/06/2016 and loan of Rs.4,68,000 received on 14/07/2016 from Stuti Kalra as filed before AO. 3.7 Ld. AR in the remand report has not made any comments with regard to Stuti Kalra and similarly Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed such addition without commenting or controverting the above submissions/documentary evidences. We find that the documentary evidences filed by assesse make it evident that the Assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving the identity, genuineness and also the creditworthiness of Stuti Kalra by proving source of source of loan i.e. housing loan of Rs.27,68,000 raised by Stuti Kalra from HDFC Ltd., Meerut out of which she advanced Rs.23,00,000 vide cheque on 11/06/2016 and Rs.4,68,000 vide cheque on 12/07/2016 to the Appellant firm. It may not be out of place to mention here that on similar facts where source of source of loan was housing loan from banks, CIT(A) has deleted P a g e | 11 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) such additions.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs.27,51,950 deserves to be deleted.
3.8 In case of Tushar Dixit the loan given by him was of Rs.2,91,000 was made and assesse claimed that he too had taken loan. Assesse filed following evidences;
(i)Confirmatory certificate dated 19/12/2022 of Tushar Dixit (now placed at page 73 of PB) certifying that he had raised housing loan of Rs.3,00,000 from Airport Authority of India in Sept. 2016 out of which Rs.2,91,000 was advanced vide cheque to the Appellant firm.
(ii)Copy of ledger A/c of Tushar Dixit in the books of the Appellant for the year under consideration (now placed at page 74 of PB) filed before AO.
(iii) Relevant Airport Authority of India housing loan statement of Tushar Dixit (now placed at page 75 of PB).
(iv)Copy of Aadhar card of Tushar Dixit is (now placed at page 76 of PB) as filed before AO.
P a g e | 12 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
(v)Relevant Punjab & Sind bank statement (Modipuram) of the Appellant firm (now placed at page 77 of PB) reflecting loan of Rs.2,91,000 received on 30/09/2016 from Tushar Dixit as filed before the AO.
3.9 The AO in remand report stated that the assessee has submitted confirmatory letter, account detail and Aadhar Number, which proves the existence of Mr. Tushar but no ITR or PAN have been provided to prove creditworthiness.The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed such addition without commenting or controverting the above submissions/documentary evidences. Now the documentary evidences admitted as additional evidences make it evident that the Assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving the identity, genuineness and also the creditworthiness of Tushar Dixit by proving source of source of loan i.e. housing loan of Rs.3,00,000 raised by Tushar Dixit from Airport Authority of India in Sept. 2016 out of which he advanced Rs.2,91,000 vide cheque to the Appellant firm. It may not be out of place to mention here that on similar facts where source of source of loan was housing loan, CIT(A) has deleted such additions.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs.2,91,000 deserves to be deleted.
P a g e | 13 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) 3.10 As with regard to the additions made on account of loans of Sri Anil Sharma of Rs. 80,000 and Ankur Sharma of Rs. 50,000 at the time of arguments before this bench, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that assessee is not contesting the same. Accordingly, to that extent, these stands sustained. Resultantly the ground no. 1 is sustained partly in favour of the assessee.
4. Ground No. 2arises out of confirmation of the disallowance of interest of Rs.27,60,000 on account of interest estimated @12% on interest free loanadvanced to partners. As per the assesse no partner has debit balance except Mr. Ompal whose account begin to have debit balance only on 28.03.2017 so the net amount in his was in fact interest on capital only given to him. Letter dated 03/12/2019 was filed before the AO, copy (now placed at pages 80-81 of PB) wherein assesse submitted as follows;
"That the advance to staff & workers have been given to ensure their availability in the business. Thus have been for business purpose & advances to Deepak Vihan, Manoj Kumar, Ompal Singh & Sanjay Rastogi have been given as amount withdrawn by partners and interest P a g e | 14 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) on capital @12% have been charged upon their capital after deducting this amount".
4.1 The fact remains that the Assessee firm has maintained a capital A/c and a current (Imprest) A/c in respect of partners namely Deepak Vihan, Manoj Kumar, Ompal Singh and Sanjay Rastogi. Copies of their capital A/cs and current (Imprest) A/cs are (now placed at pages 82-89 of PB). It is pertinent to note that interest @6% has been paid on the credit balance in their capital A/cs and similarly interest @6% has been charged on the debit balance in their current (Imprest) A/cs which works out as under:
Deepak Manoj Ompal Singh Sanjay Total
Vihan Kumar (Rs. (Rs.) Rastogi Interest
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
Interest paid @6% 7,75,804 3,28,020 2,01,500 16,55,850 29,61,174
on partner's
capital account
Interest charged @ 1,23,804 38,400 22,500 1,12,250 2,96,954
6% on partner's
current (imprest)
account
Net total interest 6,52,000 2,89,620 1,79,000 15,43,600 26,64,980
paid
4.2 It is evident from the copy of partner's A/c attached alongwith P & L A/c (now placed at pages 32-35 of PB) that only net interest (interest paid P a g e | 15 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) less interestcharged) has been credited to the A/c of the partner and therefore, the addition on account of interest deserves to be deleted. Grounds in ITA No. 5396/Del/2025 (Revenue's appeal) "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not bringing on record the circumstances as per rule 46A(1) of the income tax rules, 1962 in which the additional evidences were permitted, since in the instant case, adequate opportunity was given to the assessee and neither the assessing officer refused to admit evidences nor the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidences which have been accepted as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings.
2. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend OR DLEETE any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credits in the form of unsecured loans by misinterpreting the demand report and overlooking the fact that in the remand report, the Assessing officer has categorically stated that the documents produced during appellate proceedings were available with the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and even after affording ample opportunities, the assessee failed to submit the requisite evidences to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of loans.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that in the remand report the AO has accepted genuineness of unsecured loans of Rs. 3,66,92,468/- received from 12 entities whereas in the remand report genuineness and creditworthiness has been accepted only in the case of RajateGurudeva Tiwari and Amit Kumar Tripathi from whom loans of Rs. 54,48,400/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively have been taken.
5. In regard to the grounds raised in appeal of revenue ld. DR has filed written submission and same are reproduced here below;
P a g e | 16 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) "In the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted some additional evidences in respect of the unexplained credit added u/s 68 in the assessment order. All these materials were accepted in the interest of natural justice and sent to the AO for his comments and examination. The remand report sent by the AO in this regard, by his letter dt: 08.12.2023 and the rejoinder filled by the appellant by their letter dt:
15.11.2024 has been taken into account. On perusal of the remand report it appears that the AO has accepted Rs.3,66,92,468/- received by the appellant from the following parties as genuine, out of addition made of Rs. 4,45,11,774l-. The AO has accepted the loan transactions as genuine in respect of the following parties:-
1.Amit Kumar Tripathi 600000 accepted
2.Anita W/o Rajeev Teotia 3284400 accepted
3.Ashish Garg 3270477 accepted
4. Gaurav Dhama 3110000 accepted
5.Harmeet Walia 1505850 accepted
6.Kapil Kumar 4197902 accepted
7.Lalit Chaudhury 692500 accepted
8.Neeraj C/o Sanjeev 4573167 accepted
9. Rajate Gurudeva Tewari 5448400 accepted
10. Rajeev Kumar Dhaka 100000 accepted
11.Rajesh Kumar Vihaan 6367695 accepted
12.Sumit Kumar Saini 3542077 accepted Total Rs.3,66,92,468/-
In view of the discussion made above the AO is directed to delete Rs.3,66,92,468/- out of addition made w/s 68 of Rs. 4,45,11, 774/- for the year. The quantum of relief is restricted to Rs. 3,66,92,468/- only. The appeal on this ground is allowed in part, accordingly."
The decision of the NFAC, Delhi is not acceptable on the following grounds - During the course of assessment proceedings it was gathered that the assessee firm had received unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 4,45,11,774/- from the following persons during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18:-
Sr. No. Name of the person from whom unsecured loan received Amount (in Rs.) during the F.Y.2016-17
1. Amit Kumar Tripati 600000
2. Anil Sharma S/o Yugam Dutt 80000
3. Anita w/o Rajeev Teotia 3284400
4. Ankur Sharma 50000
5. Ashish Garg 3270477
6. Gaurav Dhama 3110000
7. Harmeet Walia 1505850 P a g e | 17 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
8. Kapil Kumar 4197902
9. Karan Pahwa 1960656
10. Lalit Chaudhary 692500
11. Neeraj c/oSanjeev 4573167
12. Omveer Singh 200000
13. Prabhat Kumar Era 2485700
14. Rajate Gurudeva Tewari 5448400
15. Rajeev Kumar Dhaka 100000
16. Rajesh Kumar Vihan 6367695
17. Stuti Kalra 2751950
18. Sumit Kumar Saini 3542077
19. Tushar Dixit 291000 Total 44511774 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee firm could produce only two of the following lenders:-
1. Anita W/o Rajeev Teotia
2. Rajeev Kumar Vihan In the assessment order it was held that the assessee firm could not prove the Identity and Creditworthiness of the persons from whom unsecured loans were received by the assessee during the F.Y. 2016-17. In the event of the assessee not been able to prove the Identity and Creditworthiness of the lenders the genuineness of the transaction remained unexplained. It was also held that the abovementioned lenders who were produced by the assessee could not substantiate the transaction with any documentary evidence.
In view of the above stated facts, unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 4,45,11,774/- received by the assessee firm during the F.Y. 2016-17 was treated as unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee firm and added to the returned income of the assessee firm u/s 68 of the Act vide Assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
2. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidences and requested for admission of the same under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on the ground that he could not furnish the same to the Assessing Officer as he was not aware of the assessment proceedings. This contention is not tenable as the assessee was given sufficient opportunities vide issue of statutory notices, the details of which is mentioned in SI. No. 1 above, but the assessee failed to comply with the notices and failed to furnish details as called for vide this Office questionnaire. In compliance to the questionnaire issued to the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.11.2019 the assessee submitted part reply. The non-compliance by the assessee to statutory notices clearly shows that reasonable, speaking and fullest natural justice has been followed by the Assessing Officer, but it is the assessee who has not availed any chances P a g e | 18 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the plea of the assessee in the appellate proceedings that he could not furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer because he was not aware of the assessment proceedings is not at all tenable.
3. Though in the remand report the then Assessing Officer had accepted the genuineness of transaction of unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 3,66,92,468/- but it was also specifically stressed that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee should not be admitted during the course of appellate proceedings because ample opportunities was afforded to the assessee vide issuance of statutory notices during the course of assessment proceedings but the assessee firm failed in its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of transaction.
4. The assessee was not entitled to raise the ground for the admissibility of additional evidence in view of the provisions of rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. As per provisions of this rule any evidence whether oral or documentary other than the evidence produced by him during the course of assessment proceedings before the A.O. except in the certain circumstances. Since the production of documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loans raised from various parties does not fall under any exceptional condition, same should not have been admitted during the course of appellate proceedings as additional evidence."
6. It is apparent that Learned CIT(A) has given benefit to the assessee completely relying on the remand report given by the assessing officer. It will be beneficial to reproduce the remand report to show that assessing officer had accepted the relevant evidences filed by the assesse. Accordingly same is reproduced below;
"In this case the assessment for AY 2017-18 was completed on 21.12.2019 at assessed income of Rs.4,75,61,500/- u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, against the return income of Rs.2,89,730/-with an addition made of Rs.4,45,11,774/-u/s 68 and Rs.27,60,000/- on account of disallowance of interest to partner.
2. This case was selected for scrutiny under CASS accordingly a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 10/08/2018 and thereafter initial notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 26/08/2019 fixing compliance date 04/09/2019 but no compliance was made. After that statutory notices u/s 142(1) were issued on various date i.e. 07/10/2019, 28/10/2019,13/11/2019 and P a g e | 19 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) 23/11/2019. In response to the notices the assesse filed the maiden response on 21/11/2019.
3. Aggrieved with the order assesse is in appeal before the CIT(A) and in support to the appeal has submitted some additional documents out of which some documents were earlier also submitted before AO and AO did not find them tenable.
1. In case of Tushar Dixit at page no.272 the assesse has submitted confirmatory letter, account detail and Aadhar Number, which proves the existence of Mr. Tushar but no ITR or PAN have been provided to prove creditworthiness.
2. In case of Sumit Kumar Saini page no. 266 PAN, Aadhar number and account detail seems to be genuine. The documents submitted suggest that the individual has taken loan and transfer the money to the assessee.
3. In case of Gaurav Kumar page no.236 PAN, documents submitted suggest that that the individual has taken loan from HDFC Limited Meerut and same is transferred to the applicant.
4. In case of Rajesh Kumar Vihan page no.235 only confirmation letter and statement of bank accounts has been submitted the account statement submitted reflects the entry of amount paid by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vihan as per confirmatory letter.
5. In case of Rajeev Dhaka page no.221 confirmation letter, PAN Aadhar and the bank account statement have been submitted by the applicant before your good office. The Aadhar, PAN seems to be genuine and the amount transfer by individual is also reflecting in the account detail of the Lord Krishna Developers and individual.
6. In case of Rajate Gurudeva Tiwari at the page no.210 the documents submitted before your good office in this case seems to be order the documents may be accepted.
7. In case of Naresh Kumar Chaudhry at the page no. 196 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be not in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 04/01/2023 suggest that individual has given loan to Mr. Omveer Singh only, no reason has been given which connects assessee to Mr. Naresh Kumar Chaudhary the Bank Account statement submitted reflects the entry but by Mr. Omveer Singh not by individual. The documents submitted deserve to be rejected.
8. In case of Niraj Kumar at the page no.184 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 07/01/2023 suggest that individual has borrowed loan from PNB Housing which reflects him in his account no. HOU/MEE/0416/282091 and the money out of this loan has been transferred to the Lord Krishna Developers which is also reflecting the account of Lord Krishna Developers and Builders.
9. In case of Krishan Pal Singh at the page no.175 the documents submitted before your good office i.e. confirmatory letter, Aadhar, PAN seems to be P a g e | 20 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) in order. The tractions are reelecting in account details of Krishna Pal Singh.
10. In case of Lalit Chaudhary at the page no. 166 the documents submitted before your good office i.e. confirmatory letter, Aadhar, PAN seems to be in order. The money has been transferred from his father and same has been transfer to the applicant. Account detail of both are attached
11. In case of Kapil Kumar Singh at the page no. 151 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 27/12/2022 suggest that individual has borrowed loan from PNB Housing which reflects him in his account no. HOU/MEE/0416/280172 and the money out of this loan has been transferred to the Lord Krishna Developers which is also reflecting the account of Lord Krishna Developers and Builders at the page no. 164 &
165.
12. In case of Harmeet Walia at the page no.148 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 29/12/2022 suggest that individual has borrowed loan from Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Bearing account no. 620109036 and the money out of this loan has been transferred to the Lord Krishna Developers which is also reflecting the account of Lord Krishna Developers and Builders at the page no. 149.
13. In case of Goarav Kumar at the page no.112 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 03/01/2023 suggest that individual has borrowed loan from ICICI housing Bank Bearing account no. LBMRT00003372588 and the money out of this loan has been transferred to the Lord Krishna Developers which is also reflecting the account of Lord Krishna Developers and Builders at the page no.113
14. In case of Ashish Garg at the page no.105 the documents submitted before your good office, the confirmatory letter obtained on 03/01/2023 suggest that individual has borrowed loan from ICICI Bank Bearing account no. LBGHZ00002850816 and the money out of this loan has been transferred to the Lord Krishna Developers which is also reflecting the account of Lord Krishna Developers and Builders at the page no. 106.
15. In case of Anita at the page no.96 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 03/01/2023 suggest that individual has borrowed loan from Syndicate Bank (Canara Bank) Bearing account no.00387740000119 and the money out of this loan has been transferred to the Lord Krishna Developers which is also reflecting the account of Lord Krishna Developers and Builders at the page no. 104.
16. In case of Amit Kumar Tripathi at the page no. 89 the documents submitted before your good office seems to be in order. The confirmatory letter obtained on 07/12/2022 suggests that individual has transfer the money which is reflecting in the account of Lord Krishna Developers.
P a g e | 21 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18)
4. In most of the cases the applicant has repaid the loan taken from various individuals mentioned above. In support the applicant has submitted the account details of borrower and lender. The documents submitted before your good office was available with the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings but after given ample opportunities assessee did not submit all these. The assessee did not comply the statutory notices and willfully did not submitted requisite documents asked through statutory notices. Hence, the assessee did not have the right to submit these documents now. Hence to be rejected.
5. Submitted for kind perusal and further necessary action at your end."
7. The Learned First Appellate Authority has given benefit to the assessee on the basis of additional evidence which were filed. The contention of learned DR has been that there was non-compliance by the assessee before assessing officer and at first appellate stage, the additional evidences were filed which were wrongly admitted.We are of considered view that in the application which was filed under Rule 46A, assessee had explained the reasons for failure to make compliance before the assessing officer, and the copy of that application has been placed in the paper book at page number 15-17.The primary assertion of the assesse was that after the initial response of the assessee, the assessing officer had not called for any further information and, at the same time, there was an intervening COVID pandemic period due to which, evidences could not be filed.We find that ld. CIT (A) had called for a response of the Assessing officer and a detailed P a g e | 22 4674 & 5396/Del/2025 Lord Krishna Developers & Builders (AY: 2017-18) response was filed in the form of remand report and having considered all the aspects, Learned CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidences.Thus, in the facts and circumstances, instead of pointing out any infirmity in the additional evidences as objection is with regard to admission of the additional evidences, we find no reason to interfere in the conclusions drawn by the learned CIT(A), and the grounds raised have no substance.
8. Resultantly, appeal of assessee is allowed and of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/-
(Manish Agarwal) (Anubhav Sharma)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated 30.03.2026
Rohit, Sr. PS
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI