IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5264/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2020-2021)

Jay Kundan Bhatt Plot No.277, Kundan Mansion, Agashi Road, Virar (West), Dist. Thane – Thane – 401303 [PAN: AQTPB0473F] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai Room No.903, 9^th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For the Respondent/Department : Shri B. Arun Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.10.2025 Pronouncement of order : 03.12.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 05/06/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 47 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 28/09/2021, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.6,45,300/-

as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on account of the difference between the balance of unsecured loan as per books of accounts of the appellant and that of his father, Shri Kundan Bhat, ignoring the fact that such difference was in the opening balance as at the start of the previous year and further the said difference had already been brought to tax in the earlier asst. years and therefore the addition of Rs.6,45,300/- was not factually and legally justified in the year under appeal and is required to be deleted.

2. The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.16,00,000/-

as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961, on account of unsecured loans borrowed from 3 parties, not appreciating that the appellant had fully discharged the burden placed by section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by placing on record sufficient evidence and therefore the addition of Rs.16,00,000/-

was not justified and is required to be deleted.”

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is an individual who derived income from house property and business during the relevant previous year. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 on 09/01/2021 declaring a total income of INR.6,41,420/- The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 28/09/2021, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of INR.30,36,719/- after making the following additions/disallowances:

(a) Addition of INR.22,45,300/- under Section 68 on account of unsecured loans taken from the following parties:

(b) Disallowance of deduction of INR.1,50,000/- claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act.

4. The Assessee challenged the above additions/disallowances in appeal before the CIT(A). Vide Order, dated 05/06/2025, the Learned CIT(A) disposed off the appeal as partly allowed. The Learned CIT(A) allowed Assessee’s claim for deduction of INR.1,50,000/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. However, the disallowance of INR.22,45,300/- (INR.6,45,300/- + INR.16,00,000/-) was confirmed by Learned CIT(A).

5. Not being satisfied by the relief granted by the Learned CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above.

Ground No.1

6. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee pertains to addition of INR.6,45,300/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans credited in the books of accounts of the Assessee.

7. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of INR.6,45,300/- on account of difference in the closing balance of unsecured loan taken by the Assessee from his father (i.e. Shri Kundan Bhatt) as reflected in the books of accounts of the Ass