AALAPS TRADLINK LLP,AHMEDABAD V. THE, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1754/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Aalaps Tradlink LLP, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 12,35,00,000 as unexplained unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had initially made this addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the loans were from known entities, including 18 partners, and that substantial repayments had been made. The tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839993 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHHAJED
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1754/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aalaps Tradlink LLP, 56/B Sthanakwas Jain Society, Nr. Naranpura Rly Crossing, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013. [PAN : ABIFA0287 C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M S Chhajed, AR Respondent by: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)/National faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is against law, equity & Justice. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by Ld.AO as the assessment order pertains to an issue which is not covered under CASS assessment. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting Rs.12,35,00,000/- U/s.68 of the Act as unsecured loan taken. 4. The order passed by the Ld.CIT9A) is void, illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity of VC hearing provided inspite of specific request Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1754/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 5. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all of any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. The assessee filed its return of income on 21.08.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 21,83,910/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had taken loans from its partners as well as from entities who were not its partners. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer, in respect of 24 parties, made an addition of Rs. 12,35,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the same as unexplained unsecured loans. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A)confirmed the addition of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had received loans from 18 of its partners, and only 6 parties were non-partners. The Ld. AR further submitted that out of the total unsecured loans of Rs. 12,35,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 8,09,71,117/- had already been repaid. It was submitted that due to business exigencies, loans were taken and immediately after availability of funds, the same were repaid to the extent stated. The Ld. AR submitted that complete details of unsecured loans were furnished before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), including confirmations, computation of income of the creditors, ledger accounts, and bank statements. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that repayment of loans cannot be the criterion for determining the genuineness of unsecured loans. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has furnished details of 24 parties including the 18 partners and 6 parties which are other than assessee’s partners which are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1754/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– 8. The assessee has also given details of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. These evidences were very well before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). Details of each loan payment, along with TDS, were also provided by the assessee. In view of the above, the amounts cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 24.02.2026. Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 24.02.2026 **mv Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1754/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 4– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "