VITAL CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue involving the same creditors was decided in the assessee's favor for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee had provided ample evidence including confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and ledger accounts, establishing the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditors for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. Therefore, the additions under Section 68 and the interest disallowance were not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 42,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the IT Act and disallowed Rs. 8,17,535/- as proportionate interest on these unsecured loans, alleging the assessee failed to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with two creditors (Aaheli Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Berhampore Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd.). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO and CIT(A) were justified in making additions for unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and disallowing proportionate interest, when the assessee had furnished all necessary details proving genuineness and creditworthiness, and the Tribunal had already decided an identical issue for the same parties in a prior assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 24-02- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2014-15.
The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1) The assessing officer treated the amount of Rs. 42,00,000/- received from creditors as unexplained cash credits and added to the total income u/s 68 of the IT Act. The assessing officer believed that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction and could not substantiate the source of source of such transaction. The Vital Care Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2014-15 assessing officer treated the same as unexplained cash credits and added to the total income u/s 68 of the IT Act. Your Appellant submits the same is not justified and therefore be deleted. 2) The asseessing officer has further disallowed Rs. 8,17,535/- as proportionate interest on unsecured loan of Rs. 42,00,000/- stating that the assessee has paid interest on unexplained cash credits. Your Appellant submits the same is not justified and therefore be deleted. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, to amend or to delete any or all the grounds of appeal.”
3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of products like Ayurvedic products like tablets, capsules, oil, syrup and ointment. The assessee filed return of income on 28-11-2024 declaring total loss at Rs. (- ) 38,59,306/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28-08-2015. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 06-05-2016 and 30-08-2016 along with his annexure calling for specific details. In response to the said notices, the chartered accountant of the assessee i.e. A.R. of the assessee company attended the proceedings and furnished the details. During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown gross turnover of Rs. 6,83,92,522/- as compared to last year’s gross turnover of Rs. 5,90,43,560/-. Profit before tax was shown at (-) Rs. 27,41,750/- as against profit of (-) Rs. 25,29,220/- shown in the immediately preceding year. The Assessing Officer further observed that in the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 dated 23-03-2016, it was held that the assessee company failed to prove creditworthiness of Aaheli Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 40,00,000/-) and Berhampore Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 20,00,000/-) which are the depositors.
Vital Care Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2014-15 After verifying the assessee’s details, the Assessing Officer held that Berhampore Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. has no creditworthiness to lend a huge sum of Rs. 42,00,000/- and thus the said amount received as unsecured loan was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further added Rs. 8,17,535/- thereby disallowing interest paid to Aaheli Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Berhampore Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 20,810/- on account of late payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14 being order dated 20-12- 2023 wherein the said depositor parties i.e. Aaheli Projects Pvt. Ltd and Berhampore Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. have been taken into account.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has relied upon the finding of the assessment year 2013-14 passed by the Assessing Officer in that relevant year in respect of Berhampore Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. and Aaheli Projects Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has given the details related to Vital Care Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2014-15 confirmation of accounts, copy of bank statement, copy of ITR, acknowledgment, copy of ledger account of both the parties has also explained the genuineness and identity as well as creditworthiness in the assessment year 2013-14 as well as 2014-15. Thus, the addition made u/s. 68 does not sustain as the assessee has explained the unsecured loans before the Assessing Officer. Besides this, the assessee has paid the interest to the said parties has also explained and hence the same cannot be disallowed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08-07-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 08/07/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026