IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Badami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/s SBL and co LLP Ward No. -1 Barmer.

(Chartered Accountant)

E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003.

PAN No. AAOPD1969R Assessee by Shri Gautam Chand Baid, CA (Physical)

Revenue by Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl.

CIT-DR Virtual Date of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026.

ORDER

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A) PANAJI, [hereinafter referred to as the JCIT (A)] dated 28.06.2024 with respect to Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The appellant assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)

erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 19,00,000/- invoking provision of Section 68 on the finding that amount received as unsecured loan from Sh. Babul al Mutal Mal HUF Rs. 6,00,000/-, Sh. Hansraj Babulal HUF Rs. 3,00,000/-, Sh. Parasmal Bhansali Rs. 5,00,000/- and Smt. Anita Devi W/o Shri Parasmal Bhansali Rs. 5,00,000/- is unexplained. Submissions made by the assessee though reproduced in the order of CIT(A), has not been considered while adjudicating the matter, lead the order arbitrary. Addition, so made by Ld. AO and sustained by CIT (A)

may kindly be deleted.

2. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.

3. The appellant prayed for the justice.

3. The soul issue challenged by the Assessee in this appeal is regarding upholding the addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- under Section 68 without appreciating the material facts on record.

4. Briefly the facts of the case as per record are that the AO has treated the receipts of fresh loan from four persons as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) ignoring the details filed by the Assessee in compliance to notices issued by the AO during the course of Assessing Proceedings (Annexure-01).

5. The Assessee being aggrieved with the Assessment Order preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT/JCIT (A) who has uphold the addition merely by observing that the appellant was not able to prove the creditworthiness, genuineness and source of cash deposits in the case of 4 parties Mr. Babu Lal Multan Mal HUF, Mr. Hansraj HUF, Parasmal Bhansali and Anita Devi. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that in absence of any clinching documentary evidence or the plausible explanation, the AO has correctly passed the Assessment order by making addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act during the year under Consideration.

6. The Ld. AR for the Assessee has submitted that the confirmation of all relevant creditors to prove genuineness of loan taken from the aforesaid parties during the period under Consideration were provided in response to notice dated 24.07.2019 issued by the AO vide Annexure- 02, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4. The AR further submitted that all the details about specific unsecured loans from 4 persons/creditors were provided in response to notice dated 20.08.2019 vide Annexure-05. The Ld. AR argued that the AO has merely stated that the banking transactions and furnishing return of income does not establish the correctness of transaction and that the cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- was deposited on 14.11.2016, whereas, the cheque was issued to the Assessee on 08.12.2016 by Shri Babu Lal Multan Mal HUF for the year under consideration, the Ld. AR has argued that all the transactions questioned by the AO relating to loan taken by the Assessee have been transacted through banking channel by way of cheque and all the creditors are filing regular return of income with sufficient balance in their accounts. He further question the arbitrary decision taken by the