Why most DPRs get rejected on first submission
Across 17 years of credit-committee feedback, the same 6 patterns kill bankability. Fix these before you submit and your sanction timeline halves.
"A bankable DPR is not the longest one. It's the one that lets the credit officer say yes without having to defend the file."
A Detailed Project Report is a sales document dressed in the clothes of a financial document. The credit officer reading it is doing two jobs at once — assessing the project, and protecting their own career from a future NPA review. Both jobs need answers in the first ten pages.
Over 17 years of submissions across PSU, private, and NBFC channels, six rejection patterns repeat. Most DPRs get rejected on at least three of them. Fix these and your file moves from "needs more information" to "let me put it up to committee" in a single revision.
1. The promoter contribution math doesn't survive a 5-minute audit
Banks fund projects, not optimism. The single most common rejection reason isn't a bad project — it's a promoter contribution that the credit officer can't verify in a 5-minute pull from CIBIL, GST, and bank statements. If you're showing ₹3 Cr of promoter contribution, the underlying source needs to be visible: a sold property's registered sale deed, a confirmed PE infusion, an existing business's audited reserves. "From own sources" is not a source.
2. The DSCR is engineered, not earned
A DSCR of 1.85 looks healthy until the credit officer reverse-engineers it. Did you assume 100% capacity utilisation in Year 1? Are your raw material costs static for 5 years while output prices grow 8%? Did you spread your tax shield optimistically? If the DSCR holds at sensitivity analysis (-15% revenue OR +15% interest OR -10% utilisation), you have a real DSCR. If it collapses below 1.25 on any one of those, the credit committee will discount your stated DSCR by 30% in their head — and decline.
3. Working capital is treated as an afterthought
Term loans get the attention; working capital kills the project. A common pattern: the DPR shows ₹50 Cr term loan + ₹15 Cr working capital + ₹10 Cr promoter contribution. The credit officer notices that with a 90-day inventory cycle and 45-day receivables, the working capital is actually ₹22 Cr at peak — and the file goes back. Calculate WC bottom-up from the operating cycle: inventory days × COGS / 365 + receivable days × revenue / 365 − payable days × purchases / 365. Then add 20% for the first-year ramp.
4. The risk matrix is generic
Most DPRs include a risk matrix that reads "Market risk — high — mitigated by diversified customer base." That tells the credit officer nothing. A real risk matrix names the specific risk (e.g. "single-customer concentration: 62% of projected Year 1 revenue from one off-take agreement") and the specific mitigation (e.g. "off-take MoU signed Sep 2026 + LC arrangement for first 18 months + parallel buyer pipeline of 3 secondary customers being qualified"). If the credit officer can't read the mitigation as a sentence they could repeat to their boss, it doesn't exist.
5. Government scheme alignment is missing or wrong
For most MSME and agri projects, the right scheme alignment cuts the effective cost of capital by 200-400 bps and unlocks subsidy that materially changes the IRR. PMFME, AIF, NABARD subsidy, MNRE schemes, CGTMSE — each has narrow eligibility windows and specific documentary requirements. The credit officer wants to see scheme alignment because (a) it de-risks the loan via subsidy, and (b) it signals the promoter has done the homework. A DPR that doesn't map to any scheme — when one obviously fits — looks lazy.
6. The executive summary is written last
It shows. The first three pages of a DPR are the only ones the senior credit committee actually reads in the first sitting. If the project, the ask, the security, the DSCR, the IRR, and the key risks aren't on those three pages — clearly, in plain numbers — the file gets returned for "more clarity." Write the executive summary first. Then write the rest of the DPR to defend it.
How we approach this at SCG
Every SCG DPR runs through a credit-committee dry run before submission. We model the file the way the lender will model it — sensitivity, scheme stack, collateral cover, NPA history — and put the rejection arguments in writing first. Then we close them. By the time the file reaches the bank, the most predictable rejection reasons are already addressed in the document.
It's slower to write. It's materially faster to sanction.
Share this essay