IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (THROUGH VIRCTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA)

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM (Assessment Year:2018-19)

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Ramswarup Bajaj Room No.507, 5^th Floor, M.G. Road, Guwahati, Kamrup Aayakar Bhawan, G.S. Road, Vs.

(Assam)-781001, Guwahati Christian Basti, Guwahati-

781005, Assam (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AESPB1565P Assessee by : S/Shri Rohit Kapoor, Virsain Aggarwal, ARs Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR Date of hearing: 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 09.02.2026

O R D E R

Per George Mathan, JM:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central, North-East Region, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. CIT (A), Central NER, Guwahati/100060/2017-18 dated 07.06.2023 for the AY 2018-19.

2. Shri Rohit Kappor & Virsain Aggarwal, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred by deleting the addition of ₹98,96,517/- on account of bogus unsecured loan in respect of which addition was made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2018-19 on the basis of disclosure of addition income by the assessee himself.

2. That on the facts of the case and in law, the ld. assessee made disclosure of addition income of ₹98,96,517/- because of the fact that incriminating materials containing various transactions were found and seized during the search.

3. That on the facts of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in ignoring / not taking sufficient note of the contents of the seized laptop marked as SH/LP/04, document marked as Annexure-A30 which contains unsecured loan transactions from different individuals along with the interest rate at which interest expense was paid as per the regular books of accounts and the ‘jamakharchi’ rate, i.e. the actual expense incurred in order to avail the entry of bogus loan. ”

4. It was submitted by the Learned CIT DR that two additions were in dispute.

5. The first issue in regard to an addition of ₹98,96,517/- deleted by the ld. CIT (A) representing bogus unsecured loans.

5.1. It was a submission that no detail has been produced by the assessee before the ld. AO and the ld. CIT (A) has considered fresh evidence. It was a submission that the ld. CIT (A) came to a conclusion that the amounts related to the firm M/s Kishlay Snacks Products and not the assessee. It was a submission that in the course of search on the assessee and assessee has admitted that the money belongs to him. It was a submission that the addition as made by the AO and as deleted by the ld. CIT (A) may be reversed and the order of the AO restored on this issue.

5.2. In reply, the Learned AR drew our attention to page 67 and 68 and 69 of the ld. CIT (A), wherein in paragraph 3 to 5 the ld. CIT (A)

has held as follows:-

“3. That, no enquiry seems to have been conducted by the Investigation wing (i.e. during the course of post search investigation) or by the AO (i.e. during the course of the assessment proceedings) with any of the party whose name was appearing in the aforesaid incriminating material as to the genuineness of the unsecured loans availed by M/s Kishlay Snack Products. Thus, the impugned Assessment Order is bereft of any enquiry or verification of any nature whatsoever from the purported parties whose unsecured loans were considered by the AO as bogus.

4. That, the AO had himself averred that the unsecured loans availed by M/s Kishlay Snack Products were "jamakharchi entries". Thus, the AO ought to have considered these alleged bogus/jamakharchi loan transactions in the hands of M/s Kishlay Snack Products under Section 68 of the Act in each of the corresponding year (as per the Table supra)

wherein the fresh/addition in the unsecured loa