DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI V. P C GLOBAL MERCHANDISING PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 3072/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of P.C. Global Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, by deleting various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions pertained to disallowances on account of written off balances, capital gains on the sale of property, and unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal examined the legal and factual basis of these additions and found that the CIT(A) had correctly interpreted the law and facts, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841650 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: TRF Lad vs. CIT, CIT vs. Times Business Solution Ltd, CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd, On process Technology India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Akzo Nobel India Ltd. Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts; Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Capital expenditure; Capital Gains; TDS; Sham transactions; Unabsorbed depreciation; Provision of bad debts; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3072/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi. Vs P.C. Global Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., B-24, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi-110017. PAN: AACCP 9641 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department represented by Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 13.03.2025 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074481372(1)], passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: “(1) Whether on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fact and law by deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,87,54,392/- on the account of written off balances. (ii) Whether on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fact and law by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,47,77,393/- on account of Capital Gain of LTCG/STCG on sale of property. (iii) Whether on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fact and law by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 109,63,649/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that for A.Y. 2020-21 the assessee filed its return of income on 19.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 7,35,924/- under normal provisions and Rs. 35,26,524/- declared under deemed total income under Section 115JB. During the year under consideration, the assessee M/s. PC Global Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. was dealing in manufacturing of textile (other than handloom). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS with reasons: \"i. Business Loss, ii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund; iii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property\" 4. The scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.09.2022 by determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 6,54,26,092/-, after making the following additions: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 1. Variation in respect of business loss Rs 3,89,49,126/- 2. Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 2,93,442/- 3. Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 1,44,83,951/- 4. Cash Credit u/s 68 of Act Rs. 1,09,63,649/- 5. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by and under the order dated 13.03.2025 allowed the assessee’s appeal by deleting the additions/disallowances made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Brief facts relating to disallowance of Rs.3,89,49,126/-on account of balance written-off as bad-debt, raised in ground No. 1, are that the assessee in its ITR claimed set-off of business loss of Rs. 2,90,18,331/- from other heads of income. The assessee’s submission on this issue was \"No business losses have been set off against any other head of income. However, lower of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of Rs 41,45,082/- of the previous years have been set off against the Book Profit under section 115JB.\". 7. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had written off balances of Rs. 3,89,49,126/- under the head other expenses of profit & loss A/c in the ITR while no provisions were created for the same in earlier years or not classified as bad debts to the same. He required the assessee to show-cause along- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 with documentary evidence as to why the same may not be disallowed. Further, the assessee was asked to provide the evidence showing that the balances were non- performing assets as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer after perusal of the reply and ledger account submitted by the assessee found that major of the balances written-off were related with Aplaya Creations Limited, Narnarayan Trading Private Limited, VHK Fabrics, Apostle Trading Consultants Pvt Ltd. The Ld. AO found the claim as not acceptable on the grounds: (i) No provisions were created for the debtors treating them as Bad debt. (ii) No bills/vouchers related to any of the major balances written off were provided to substantiate the genuineness of the debtors as well. (iii) OTS documents related with the PNB nowhere says that the balances written off or debtors are Non-performing assets as claimed by the assessee in its reply. (iv) No evidence submitted about legal action against the debtors, or any efforts made for recovery of the debts. (v) Govt. balances, if due will be recovered in due course and should not be categorized as non- performing. 8. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly concluded that in view of the above, it was clear that the assessee with the intention to set-off the income from Capital gains, written-off the balances, hence, balances written-off was disallowed and added to the Income under the head Income from Business & Profession. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, inter alia, by observing as under: “6.3.3 I have gone through the facts of the case, written submissions and paper filed in paper book which clearly establish that debtors written off other than Income Tax refund of Rs.9,857/- and TDS receivable of Rs.1,84,877/- pertains to F.Y 2014-15 and 2017-18 are as per provisions laid down u/s 36(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and there was no requirement to make the provision of bad debts in the law. However, if amount of bad debts is recovered in the later year the same shall be shown as income of the Appellant Company. The amount of bad debts claimed have been duly booked as sale and shown as income during the previous year 2017-18, relevant to the AY 2018-19. These transactions of sales have been accounted for in the books of accounts of Appellant Company. Copy of certificate from the auditors certifying that the sale credited in the Profit and Loss Accounts for the financial year (FY) 2017-18 includes the sales made to the debtors for which bad debts have been claimed during the previous year 2019-20 relevant to the AY 2020-21 have also been provided by the Appellant Company. 6.3.4 Reliance in this regard further placed in the judgement in the case of TRF Lad vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that post 01-04-1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that his debt has become bad. If the debt has been written off in the books then it would be sufficient to allow the deduction. 6.3.5 Similar view has also been taken in the following judgments. A. CIT vs. Times Business Solution Lid (2013)354 ITR 25 Delhi. B. CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2015) 228 Taxman 309 (Bombay) (Mag.) C. On process Technology India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 laxmann. Com 428 (Kol-Tri) D. Akzo Nobel India Lid. Vs. DCIT (2017) 81 taxman.com 366 (Kol-Tri.) Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 6.3.6 It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been accepted by the department with no further amendments. The said is abundantly clear from the CBDT Circular No 12/2016 dated 30.05.2016. 6.3.7 Accordingly on the basis of above discussion and after duly considering all the submissions made by the appellant, I do not have any hesitation in holding that the impugned addition made by the AO was not justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3,87,54.392/- made by the AO is deleted. The appellant succeeds in these grounds.” 10. Having regard to the fact that the amount of bad debts have been duly booked as sale and shown as income during the previous year 2017-18 and these transactions of sale were accounted for in the books of account of the appellant company, furthermore, the certificate of the auditors certifying that the sale credited in the P&L Account for FY 2017-18 includes the sales made to the debtors for which bad debts have been claimed in the year under consideration, details whereof in our considered opinion have been duly been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in its proper perspective and considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Lad v. CIT (supra) which has further been considered by the Department along with the CBDT Circular No. 12/16 dated 30.05.2016 the deletion of addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 3,87,54,392/- is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant any interference. This ground of appeal filed by the Revenue, therefore, fails. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 11. Brief facts relating to addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,47,77,393/-, as per Ld. Assessing Officer are that the assessee had reported sale consideration of property less than the sale consideration amount on which tax is deducted as reported by the transferee of property in TDS return (Form 26QB). The assessee had shown capital gain of Rs. 2,89,93,734/- (LTCG Rs. 1,88,91,328/- + STCG 1,01,02,406/-). 12. Upon consideration of the reply filed by the assessee explaining the discrepancy found in the calculation of capital gains, the Ld. Assessing Officer observed that: i. Tthe assessee has divided total sale value of Land & Building of Rs. 6,80,00,000/- equally while it should be distributed in proportion to the valuation done by stamp valuation authority. ii. As per stamp valuation authority, Land and building are valued in proportion of 331:337 (ratio of valuation of land and valuation of building) Thus proportionate expenses of commission for Sale consideration of Land Rs. 3.36,94,611/- and Sale consideration for building Rs. 3,43,05,389/-. Thus the assessee has claimed all the expenses related to transfer ie. commission expense of Rs. 11,87,000/-in computing LTCG related to Land while it should be distributed in proportion to the valuation done by stamp valuation authority. As per stamp valuation authority, Land and building are valued in proportion of 331:337 (ratio of valuation of land and valuation of building). Thus, proportionate commission expense for land and building would be Rs. 5,88,169/- and Rs.5,98.831/- respectively as per the Ld. AO. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 iii. Depreciation schedule of the ITR filed for the A.Y. 2020-21, perusal of which, it is found that the W.D.V. as on 01.04.2019 was wrongly shown by the assessee in Depreciation schedule of Annual Report-Financial Statement at Rs. 2,18,76,415/- while the W.D.V. of the building without land as per ITR was Rs. 91,20,201 and Consideration from sale of building was shown in the ITR at Rs. 2,82,25,457/ while as per the sale consideration divided into proportion, it should be Rs. 3,43,05,389/-. Discrepancy was also found in regard to STGG on calculation made qua the ITR. iv. Repair & Maintenance of Building claimed as Addition in Building during the year - After perusal of the ITR, depreciation schedule and STCG calculation submitted by the assessee, it is found that the assessee has made expenses towards repair & maintenance of Rs. 90,02,850/-. In respect of it, the assessee was asked to provide the complete ledger of M/s Ganpati Traders and RL.I corporation, quotation of the parties for renovations done, agreement for the renovation, TDS deducted on the payments made to these contracts along-with evidence of TDS deposited and complete details of total payments made. The assessee submitted that it had paid repairs and maintenance of building to M/s. Ganpati Traders and M/s. RLI Corporation. Tax at source was deducted and deposited along with due interest. Copies of details of TDS, ledgers of M/s. Ganpati Traders, M/s. RLI corporation and TDS challan were attached. The assessee company did not take any written quotation form them nor executed any agreement. Work was allotted to them based on their survey and estimates. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 13. The Assessing Officer, rejecting the claim of the assessee made addition of Rs. 2,93,442/- under the head LTCG (LTCG re-computed of Rs. 191,84,770/- minus LTCG as per ITR of Rs. 1,88,91,328/-) and addition of Rs. 1,44,83,951/- under the head STCG (STCG re-computed of Rs. 2,45,86,357-minus STCG as per ITR of Rs. 1,01,02,406/-), inter alia, by observing: i. After perusal of the data gathered under Section 133(6) and data available on Insight portal of the department. it is found that Amit Aggarwal (Ganpati Traders) & Vinod Negi (RLI Corporation) are non-filers and no any return was filed. Notice u/s 133(6) issued to them but no reply was furnished. Further, the assessee Sachin Thakur (Duru Trading Co.) has not filed any return after 18.01.2018 and it also has not filed any reply in response to notice u/s 133(6). ii. The sale deed was executed on 23.12.2019 and out of total additions of Rs. 90.02.850/- only Rs. 12,47,747/- has been paid during the F.Y. 2019- 20 iii. All the bank accounts mentioned in the Invoice are of the same bank and branch and it is not a coincidence that all the contractors opened account in the same bank and branch ie in Bandhan Hank. Further all the accounts mentioned on the invoices were opened between December 2019 to January 2020 and closed between November 2020 to December 2020. iv. Signature of the proprietor as mentioned on the invoice is not matching with the signature of the PAN data available on the Insight of the so-called contractors. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 v. No bills/vouchers/estimates produced, It was said that the work was allotted based on their survey and estimates. No documentary evidence produced which substantiate that the repair & maintenance was actually done worth so much. vi. The expenses related to Repair & maintenance is a Revenue Expenditure and the assessee was claiming as Capital expenditure. vii. Invoice of Ganpati Traders and Duru Trading Co. states total area as 2508 sqm. In both cases measurement are same. Further as per the sale deed total area 2278.48 sqm. viii. A/c No. mentioned on the Invoice of Ganpati Traders 10190010668399 in which the assessee has made payment was obtained u/s 133(6) and found that the account pertains to Universal Trading Joint holder Mr. Rajesh Nagpal and the account was opened on 18.12.2019 and closed on 09.11.2020. Further, no any payment was made in this account by the assessee till the account was closed.” 14. The Ld. AO disallowed the claim of repair and maintenance and addition to Building amounting to Rs. 90,02,850/-, inter alia, by observing that Account number mentioned on the Invoice of Duru Trading Co. 10190010820044 was obtained u/s 133(6) and found that the account pertains to Innovate Trading Joint holder Mr. Suresh Rana and the account was opened on 21.12.2019 and closed on 22.12.2020. Further, no other payment was made in this account by the assessee till the account was closed. A/c No. mentioned on the Invoice of Ganpati Traders Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 10200000557212 in which the assessee has made payment was obtained u/s 133(6) and found that the account pertains to Dynamic Trading Joint holder Mr. Manoj Kumar and the account was opened on 29.01.2020 and closed on 17.12.2020. Further, no any payment was made in this account by the assessee till the account was closed. After perusal of the above bank accounts information, it was found that all the bank accounts are opened between December 2019 to January 2020 and closed between November 2020 to December 2020. Name of the account holders or joint holders does not match with the PAN or Invoice submitted by the assessee. Further, all the offices of the above entities are in the same building ie Niti Shree Building. The above shows that the accounts were opened just to colour the transactions shown as Repair & Maintenance. Thus, it is evident that the assessee has submitted forged documents to claim bogus repair and maintenance. After perusal of the Annual Report, it is found that the assessee company has stopped all production activities from June 2018 onwards. The company is showing loss in previous year F.Y. 2018-19 (Net Loss of Rs. 1,13.57,689/- under the head Income chargeable under the head Profits and gains from business or profession as per ITR. The assessee claimed that a fire took place in 2014 and insurance claim was received in 2015 of Rs. 2,05.63.848. The company was engaged in production activities till June 2018. Thus, without repair & maintenance already done in earlier years, activities could not be carried out. It is evident from the above fact Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 that with mala fide intention the assessee was representing wrong facts to evade the taxes due and submitted forged documents to gain tax benefit. Hence, the claim of repair and maintenance and addition to Building of Rs. 90,02,850/- is being disallowed. 15. Aggrieved against the order of Ld. AO the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition, inter alia, by observing as under: “8.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, written submissions and paper filed in paper book which clearly proves that Appellant company incurred above mentioned expenses for repair and maintained as per resolution passed by the company in board meeting dated 12.08.2019 and as per copy of MOU entered between the Appellant company and buyer of the property on 29.08.2019 The Appellant company is maintaining accounting books on mercantile basis therefore, it was mandatory on the part of the Appellant Company to record the full amount of expenses incurred in its accounting books before ending the accounting year whether payments have been made to the creditors within this financial year or not. Further as per copy of resolution and MOU the appellant company has sold entire assets ie land building, plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures in usable condition. Further, the books of accounts of the appellant are audited and the AO did not find any discrepancies in the books so as to reject the books of accounts. The repair and renovation work is carried out on the basis of MOU and all the payments are made by cheque. Further, the chartered engineer/government valuer have certified the work of repair and renovation done by the appellant. Inadvertently the AO did not consider WDV of furniture and fixtures of Rs. 16.09,971/- and WDV of plant and machinery of Rs. 41.64.5711- as on 31.03.2019 in computation of the cost of the building to calculate amount of Short Term Capital Gain. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 90.02.850/- made by the AO is deleted and WDV of furniture and fixtures and plant and machinery are allowed in considering the total cost of the building. This ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.\" Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 16. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and perusing the relevant material available on record we find that it is a fact that the assessee is maintaining the mercantile system of accounting and recorded full amount of expenses incurred, in the accounts, before ending the accounting year. The appellant company has sold entire assets i.e land building, plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures in usable condition. Furthermore, the books of accounts are duly audited wherein no discrepancies could be pointed out neither the books of accounts have been rejected. It further appears that the repair and renovation work was done on the basis of MOU and payments were made through account payee cheques. Further fact came to the light that the written down value (WDV) of furniture and fixtures of Rs. 16,09,971/- and WDV of plant and machinery of Rs. 41,64,571/- as on 31.03.2019 was not considered by the Ld. AO in computing the cost of the building to calculate the amount of Short Term Capital Gain. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect of the matter the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO and allowing the WDV of fittings and fixtures as mentioned hereinabove in considering the total cost of building is found to be without any ambiguity and hence upheld. Ground fails. 17. On the issue of Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Rs. 1,09,63,649/- facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that income of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel since FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20 is very Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 meagre. Further after perusal of ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19, it is found that net loss from business & profession was of Rs. 2,81,87,820/- and it was carried forward to further years. After perusal of ITR for AY. 2020-21 Balance loss carried forward to future years was of Rs. 67,91,713. Thus, from the above, the Ld.AO concluded that the assessee's financial condition was not good and that he was not in a position to provide such huge loan to the appellant company. 18. During the F.Y. 2017-18 purchase related data of GST of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel shows that the assessee has shown purchase from Narnarayan Trading Private Limited amounting to Rs. 97,82,175/-. 19. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that income of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel since F.Y 2016-17 to EY 2019-20 is very meagre. Further after perusal of ITR for the A.Y. 2018- 19, it is found that net loss from business & profession was of Rs. 2,81,87,820/- and it was carried forward to further years. After perusal of ITR for A,Y. 2020-21. Balance loss carried forward to future years was of Rs. 67.91,713/-. Thus, from the above, AO concluded that the assessee's financial condition was not good and that he was not in a position to provide such huge loan to the appellant company. 20. During the F.Y. 2017-18 purchase related data of GST of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel shows that the assessee has shown purchase from Narnarayan Trading Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 Private Limited amounting to Rs. 97,82,175/- and in the same year the assessee company made sales to the above company of Rs. 84,89,671/-. 21. Further during the F.Y. 2017-18, Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel has shown sales of Rs. 70,31,050/- to its own assessee company and to Harshita Singh Prop. VHK Fabrics of Rs. 34,71,006/-. 22. After perusal of the bank statement of M/s Plaza Computers, it was found the account was credited with Rs. 6.05,49,400/- by Ms AKJ Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. While there has no sale or purchase made with the above party by Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel or its proprietary concern Maza Computers since FY. 2017-18 to FY. 2019-20. Ms AKJ Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. was shown as (dr.) balance(Debtors) in the books of the assessor company M/s PC Global Merchandising Pvt. Lid. of Rs. 45.47,772/- during the FY 2019-20 23. It was very surprising that the director Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel was receiving so much amount from the debtors of the assessee company but the assessee company unable to get the fund from the debtor M/s AKJ Fabrics Pvt. Lad in the F.Y. 2019-20. Further, as per GST data for the F.Y. 2019-20 of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Geel it is found that there has only sales of Rs. 1,51,891/- 24. The assessee in its reply stated that Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel received Rs. 42,21.075/- as realization from Sundry debtor AKJ Fabrics Private Limited while Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 he has received Rs. 6,05,49,400/- in its account from the said entity. After checking the GST data it is also gathered that no any transaction of purchase has been made with the AKJ Fabrics Private Limited by Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel. 25. Considering further facts the Ld. AO observed that Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel was directly receiving the funds on behalf of the assessee company which was clearly seen from the ledger of the director Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel and bank statement of Plaza Computers as well. Thus, it cannot be denied that out of the amount so received was paid to the assessee company and shown it as liability of the assessee company for future gains and the assessee company has written off the balances of the parties. The Ld. AO further observed that it was beyond doubt that the Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel was actively engaged in malpractice of bogus and sham transactions. Thus, the claim of the assessee on this issue as well was not found acceptable. Hence, total loan credited in the books of the assessee company related to the accounts of Rs. M/s Plaza Computers and Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel credited for the F.Y. 2019-20 was treated as unexplained cash credit us 68 r.ws 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 26. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, inter alia, by observing as under: “a. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer found that income of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel since F.Y 2016-17 to F.Y Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 2019-20 is very meagre. Further after perusal of ITR for the A.Y. 2018- 19, it is found that net loss from business & profession was of Rs. 2,81,87,820/- and it was carried forward to further years. After perusal of ITR for A.Y. 2020-21. Balance loss carried forward to future yearswas of Rs. 67,91,713/-. Thus, from the above, AO concluded that the appellant’s financial condition was not good and that he was not in a position to provide such huge loan to the appellant company. b. Further assessing officer found, after perusal of the bank statement of M/s Plaza Computers, that account was credited with Rs. 6,05,49,400/- in respect of M/s AKJ Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. While there has no sale or purchased made with the above party by Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel or its proprietary concern Plaza Computers since F.Y.2017-18 till F.Y.2019-20 c. Hence, total loan credited in the books of the Appellant company from M/s Plaza Computers and Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel credited for the F.Y. 2019-20 was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. d. Confirmation from KSA Resources LLP. Ruchi Goel, Nandani Goel, Mehak Goel and sale deed executed with Mr. Sanjay Kaushik are attached (Annexure-38 to Annexure-42).Barik statement of Plaza Computers showing payment received from AKJ Fabris private Limited is attached (Annexure-43). The appellant company duly explained the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and discharged the onus as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of the credits received from Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel and Messrs. Plaza Computers. 9.1 Thus, the appellant company has fully discharged and explained not only the source of credit, i.e. from Mr. Sudeep Ranjan Goel/Plaza Computers, but also, source of source of Mr. Sudeep Ranjan/ Plaza Computers. 9.2 1 have gone through the facts of the case, written submissions and papers filed in the paper hook which clearly establish identity, creditworthiness and capacity of persons, who have given unsecured loans and the genuineness of the transaction. I do not have any hesitation in holding that the impugned addition made by the AO was not justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,09,63,649/- made by the AO w/s 68 r.ws 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961 is deleted. This ground is decided in favour of appellant”. Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No. 3072/Del/2025 27. Having heard the submissions made by the respective parties and considering the material available on record we find that the Ld. CIT(A) upon considering the evidences/documents filed by the parties found the identity, creditworthiness, capacity of persons who have given impugned unsecured loans and further the genuineness of the transaction in order. Nothing could have been controverted by the Ld. DR to the said findings. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question and the deletion of addition, therefore, found to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Ground fails. 28. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 25.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SMT. RENU JAUHRI) (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25.02.2026. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "