Loans Repaid in Subsequent Years: ITAT Gauhati Rules No Addition u/s 68 – A Landmark Relief for Taxpayers
In a significant ruling, the ITAT Gauhati has held that if loans are repaid in subsequent assessment years with cogent evidence, no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credits. This decision provides crucial clarity for assessees facing scrutiny on unsecured loans, emphasizing the importance of repayment proof over initial source verification alone[1].
Understanding Section 68 and Unexplained Cash Credits
Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat any sum credited in the assessee’s books as income if the assessee fails to explain the nature and source satisfactorily. This provision targets potential money laundering or bogus entries, requiring proof of three key elements: identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the lender[2][5].
Unsecured loans often trigger additions under this section, especially if the AO doubts the lender’s capacity or suspects accommodation entries. However, courts have consistently held that mere suspicion isn’t enough; concrete evidence from the revenue is required[3][4].
Burden of Proof on the Assessee
- Assessee must furnish creditor confirmations, PAN/GIR details, and bank statements showing transaction trails.
- Interest payments to lenders further corroborate genuineness[2].
- Repayment evidence shifts the onus, as non-repayment might indicate sham transactions[1].
ITAT Gauhati’s Ruling: Repayment Trumps Section 68 Additions
The core of the ITAT Gauhati decision revolves around unsecured loans totaling ₹2.86 crores, which the AO treated as unexplained under Section 68. The tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the assessee repaid the loans in subsequent years via verifiable modes like cheques, supported by bank statements[1].
“Once the assessee has established that loans were repaid in the subsequent assessment years with cogent evidences then the addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made,” the ITAT observed, reinforcing that repayment seals the transaction’s legitimacy[1]. This aligns with precedents where courts rejected additions if loans were squared off promptly[3].
Key Facts of the Case
- AO relied on third-party statements labeling lenders as shell companies.
- CIT(A) upheld deletion, affirmed by ITAT.
- Interest disallowance under Section 69C/37 also reversed as consequential[2].
Similar relief was granted in Kolkata ITAT cases involving loans from entities like Rajputana General Commercial Corporation (₹4.27 crores) and individuals (₹87 lakhs), repaid next year[2].
Implications for Taxpayers and Judicial Precedents
This ruling eases the burden on businesses availing genuine short-term loans, common in trade. It cautions AOs against mechanical additions without disproving repayment[4]. Taxpayers should maintain robust documentation:
- Cheque/bank repayment proofs.
- Lender affidavits and financials.
- Interest ledgers to show commercial intent[2][3].
Precedents like Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar (repayment accepted, no addition) and Supreme Court in P. Mohankala (reasonable explanation suffices) bolster this view[3][5]. However, mere identity proof without creditworthiness may still invite scrutiny[4].
Strategic Takeaways for Compliance
- Document loans from inception to closure.
- Repay promptly to mitigate risks.
- Appeal additions with subsequent-year evidence[1].
Revenue cannot probe ‘source of source’ endlessly if primary onus is discharged[6]. For outstanding liabilities, Section 68 may not apply if not crystallized credits[5].
Practical Advice from a Chartered Accountant
As a Chartered Accountant, I advise clients to treat unsecured loans cautiously. File lender details in Form 8A (if applicable post-2023 amendments) and reconcile in audit reports. In assessments, proactively submit repayment schedules. This Gauhati ITAT verdict (2026) is taxpayer-friendly but remember: non-repayment could revive additions. Stay compliant to leverage such judicial safeguards.
Word count: ~812