IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Praveen Gupta, 60/20, First Vs. ACIT, New Delhi Floor, Prabhat Road, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-

110005.

PAN :AEMPG0199J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.03.2025 ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [in short “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. This is second round of appeal before us. In the first round, the matter had travelled to the ITAT who vide its order in ITA No. 2263/Del/2016 dated 18.06.2019 had restored two issues back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, being  addition made on account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.93,56,268/- and  addition of sundry creditors held to be bogus and disallowed amounting to Rs.12,23,800/-.

The assessee had stated to the ITAT that it was unable to obtain confirmations of the concerned parties since the matter had come up after many years before the Revenue authorities and if given an opportunity, the assessee would collect all relevant details to the satisfaction of the Revenue authorities against the impugned additions. ITAT, therefore, acceded to the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee for restoration of the appeal back to the Assessing Officer.

3. In the second round, before the Assessing Officer, the issues were examined afresh and both the additions were confirmed by the Assessing Officer.

4. Before the learned CIT(Appeals), none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) reiterated the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising following grounds :

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) -29, New Delhi is contrary to the facts and bad in law.

2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in partly confirming the addition of Rs.

36.71.268/-being unsecured loan received from Nihal Chand Diwan. Naresh Enterprises, Kamal Kalia and Dinesh Trading Co. treating the same as unexplained cash credit without properly appreciating the documentary evidence furnished during the assessment proceedings.

3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,80,000/- being credit received from JP Gupta as unsecured loan on account of alleged unexplained cash credit without properly appreciating the documentary evidence furnished during the assessment proceedings.

4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and erred in directing to add an amount of Rs. 23,05,000 as addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of unsecured loan taken from M/s Goel Exim India Pvt Ltd.

5 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier.”

5. During the course hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has come on record. The matter is proceeded to be adjudicated ex parteon the basis of material on record and with the assistance of the Ld.DR.

6. In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of addition of Rs.36,71,268/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. The addition relates to the following parties.

(i) Nihal Chand Dewan Rs.6,40,000/-

(ii) Naresh Enterprises Rs.17,20,000/-

(iii) Kamal Kalia Rs.51,268/-

(iv) Dinesh Trading Co. Rs.12,60,000/-

7. In the second round before the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished only confirmatio