Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial onus lies upon the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to discharge this onus justifies the treatment of such credits as the assessee's undisclosed income.

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders dated 06.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly, we shall take ITA No. 9068/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and facts narrated therein.

The following grounds are reproduced below:

“1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 06/10/2025 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.28,13,66,000 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring all logics, documentsdences of transactions during the course of assessment proceedings which is not correct. Everything was highlighted/clarified before the Ld. CIT(A) through our submission dated 10/06/2025 before his Honour clarifying three criteria i.e., proof of identity of the crediton capacity of creditors to advance money and Genuineness of transaction. But the Ld. CIA) was not ready to shoulder the burden of relieving the addition of Rs 28,13,66,000/- u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 which has been made by the Assessing Officer illegally because ion 68 of the Act is not at all applicable where books of accounts are rejected u/s 145 of the IT. Act, 1961 judicial pronouncements of which were also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). If the Ld. CIT(A) only follows the views of the Assessing Officer without Ving a little thought in regard to clarification of the appellant, this type of unbalanced sccasion will always come into light. Sir, we therefore, solicit your intervention for ju te minst the whimsical decision taken by both the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A)

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by blindly supporting the cause of rejecting books of accounts u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer which are not correct as well as misleading because without pointing out any defect in accounts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer is not at all empowered to remot the book results which has been audited by a qualified Chartered Accountant.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by sot showing the loss of Rs.4,763/- which was taken at Ground No.2 without mentioning a single word for such non-acceptance of the Ground No.2. This also shows adamanted mentality of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC which is not correct.

4. For that the observations and contentions of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds which are not correct, proper and based on pridefulness of his chair”

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay in filing the appeal before us, for which an application has been placed on record. The same is reproduced herein below :

To

The Ld. Bench Member

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Mumbai Benches

Pratishtha Bhavan, 3rd & 4th Floor

101, M.K. Road

Mumbai - 400 020

Date: 24/12/2025

Respected Sir,

Sub: Condonation of delay in filing Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - P.A. No. AAGCM5770J - A.Y. 2012-13 - Request for - Matter regarding:

Ref: Appeal Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi - DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081477917(1) dt. 06/10/25

Kindly refer to the above.

We like to draw your kind attention to the fact that the above mentioned Appellate Order was received by your appellant on the same day i.e. or 06/10/2025 against which 2nd Appeal before your honour was supposed to be filed within sixty days, i.e. within 05/12/2025. But as ill luck would have it, father of our stenographer, who is looking after the proc