Additional evidence admitted without remand report; interest disallowance deleted citing commercial expediency
Meetu Kumari | Feb 17, 2026 |
ITAT Remands Rs. 3.80 Cr Addition for Fresh Verification; Upholds Deletion of Rs. 86.99 Lakh Interest Disallowance
M/s. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd. filed its return for AY 2013-14, declaring an income of Rs. 2.20 crore. Based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged accommodation entries connected with the Praveen Jain group, the Assessing Officer (AO) examined unsecured loans of Rs. 3.80 crore received from five entities. The AO treated the amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, holding that the assessee failed to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders, particularly due to non-production of bank statements.
The AO also disallowed Rs. 86.99 lakh under Section 36(1)(iii) towards proportionate interest on alleged interest-free advances, along with a minor disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and deleted both the Section 68 addition and the interest disallowance. The Revenue appealed before the Tribunal.
Main Issues: Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the Section 68 addition without complying with Rule 46A by obtaining a remand report from the AO and whether deletion of interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified.
ITAT’s Order: The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had admitted crucial additional evidence without granting the AO an opportunity to examine the same, thereby not adhering to Rule 46A. As the Section 68 addition was primarily based on absence of these documents, the matter was remanded to the AO for limited verification of the additional evidence, without permitting any roving or fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion. It observed that the advances were business-related and that the assessee possessed sufficient interest-free own funds. The AO failed to establish diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Relying on Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. v. CIT and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted where advances were made on grounds of commercial expediency. Thus, the Revenue’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]
Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"
