VALUE PLUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA V. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1984/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Value Plus Retail Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, confirming the addition of 3,95,80,391 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had treated the unsecured loans from 20 related parties as unexplained, despite the assessee providing substantial documentation including income tax returns, bank statements, and loan confirmations. The Tribunal, referencing several precedents from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, found merit in the assessee's arguments and directed the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also addressed the consequential disallowance of interest on these loans and the issue of non-deposit of TDS, restoring these matters to the AO for re-verification and fresh adjudication respectively.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829765 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., PCIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., PCIT Vs. M/s Edmond Finvest Pvt. Ltd., PCIT Vs. Parwati Lakh Udyog
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.B. CHAKRABORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; TDS; Source of fund
• Section: 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 1984/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Value Plus Retail Private Limited J-62, Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, H.O. Raghunathpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida--201301, Uttar Pradesh, Vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCV6349N Assessee by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 06.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.07.2025 for the AY 2013-14. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in ground no.1 is general in nature. 3. The issue raised by the assessee in ground nos.2 & 3 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹3,95,80,391/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 1984/KOL/2025 Value Plus Retail Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee borrowed money from 20 related parties aggregating to ₹3,95,80,391/- during the year the details whereof are given at page no.2 and 3 of the assessment order. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.09.2013, showing total income of ₹1,88,54,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued which were duly replied by the assessee by filing all the details qua the loan creditors comprising ITRs bank statements, confirmations, etc. The ld. AO treated the said loans as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee despite the assessee filing all the documents proving the authenticity, capacity of the persons giving loans and also informing the ld. AO qua the repayments having been done etc. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by simply confirming the finding of the ld. AO. 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has raised unsecured loans from related parties/ family members, who were having their sources and creditworthiness to lend. The assessee filed before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) the copies of ITRs, confirmations and their bank statements etc. However, the amounts were treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee by the AO. We also find that the loans were repaid in the subsequent financial years. We note that all the loans having their sources of income by way of salaries which had been noted by the authorities below while analyzing the data. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn on this issue by the ld. CIT (A). The case of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 1984/KOL/2025 Value Plus Retail Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited in ITAT/133/2025, IA no. GA/2/2025 vide order dated 5th August, 2025, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/76/2025, IA No. GA/1/2025, vide order dated 10.06.2025, PCIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. in ITAT/268/2024, IA No. Ga/1/2024, GA/2/2024 vide order dated 17th December, 2024, PCIT Vs. M/s Edmond Finvest Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/28/2024, IA No. Ga/2/2024 vide order dated 26th February, 2024, PCIT Vs. Parwati Lakh Udyog, in ITAT/2/2024, IA No. GA/1/2024 vide order dated 19th February, 2024. Considering the facts of the assessee case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition on this issue. Consequently, the ground nos. 2 & 3 are allowed. 4. The issue raised in ground no.4, is against the disallowance of interest on the said unsecured loans, which is consequential to ground nos. 2 and 3. Since, we have already allowed the issue in ground nos.2 and 3, the ground no.4 is also allowed. 5. The issue raised in ground no.5 is against the sustaining disallowance u/s 40A(ia) of the Act to the tune of ₹12,92,888/- on account of non- deposit of TDS, despite the fact that the assessee has deposited TDS before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. We note that the ld. CIT (A) has already restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO for re-verification and adjudication afresh. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the ld. AO and direct the ld. AO to decide the same in the light of the evidences filed by the assessee. The ground no. 4 is allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 1984/KOL/2025 Value Plus Retail Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 13.01.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "