DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA vs. SAI PLY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2172/KOL/2026Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 September 2026AY 2016-176 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, consisting only of ledger copies of the assessee's accounts, were not incriminating. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

During a search and survey operation, the Assessing Officer (AO) added unsecured loans, interest, and commission expenses to the assessee's income. The AO relied on seized materials which he claimed indicated bogus entities and were corroborated by statements.

What were the issues?

Whether ledger copies of the assessee's accounts seized during a search operation constitute incriminating material to justify additions to income. Whether additions made under Section 68, 36(i)(iii), and 69C are valid without incriminating evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 133A,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 36(i)(iii),Section 69C,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 03.09.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 26, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] even dated 22.12.2025 for the AY 2015-16 to 2018-19.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folders that there is 2. a delay of 102 days in filing these appeals by the department in ITA Nos.2171, 2172 & 2174/KOL/2026 and in support of that condonation petitions were filed. It was stated in the condonation petitions that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent

ITA Nos. 2171 to 2174/KOL/2026 Sai Ply Privte Limited; A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19 authorities, which took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing.

ITA no. 2171/KOL/2026 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹45,45,924/- in respect of unsecured loans, ₹7,26,616/- in respect of interest and ₹22,730/- commission expenses which were added by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during the course of search operation (ID Mark bearing No. SM-40; Page No.1-55) which were related to bogus entities and based on the statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act, corroborating the same.

4.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income at ₹70,87,110/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Pertinent to state that a search and seizure action was made u/s 132 of the Act as well as survey u/s 133A of the Act were conducted in the office premises of Sai Ply Group of companies on 18.12.2020, in Kolkata as well as on the residential premises of the directors. During the course of search/survey incriminating materials were found and seized by the search team. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 29.10.2021, which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income on 23.11.2021, Page 2 of 6

ITA Nos. 2171 to 2174/KOL/2026 Sai Ply Privte Limited; A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19 declaring income amounting to ₹70,87,110/-. Thereafter, statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were duly served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee filed all the details and evidences on 01.02.2022, as required by the ld. AO after taking into account the seized material which were nothing but only ledger copies of assessee’s books of accounts and added a sum of Rs 45,45,924/- in respect of unsecured loans by treating the same as unexplained cash credit. The AO added ₹7,62,616/- in respect of interest paid on the unsecured loans and also commission of expenses of ₹22,730/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with section 153A of the Act on 31.03.2022.

5.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition as made by the ld. AO by holding that the documents seized by the search team were nothing but copies of ledger accounts of the assessee which did not contain any incriminating materials for making the addition and thus, after relying on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC), wherein the ld. CIT (A) has held as under:-

“5. निर्णयर्ण / Decision: The appellant had filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 25.03.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.70,87,110/-. The same was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a search operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 18.12.2020 and on subsequent dates in the office premises of “ Sai Ply Group of Companies” based at Kolkata as well as at the residential premises of the Directors and Key persons connected with this group, where from it is deducted that the instant appellant is one of the group/associate concerns of the said group. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A Page 3 of 6

ITA Nos. 2171 to 2174/KOL/2026 Sai Ply Privte Limited; A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19 of the Act was issued and assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 31.03.2022 after making the following additions: (i) Addition u/s 68 of the Act : Rs. 45,45,924/- (ii) Addition u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act : Rs. 7,62,616/- (iii) Addition u/s 69C of the Act : Rs. 22,730/- Hence, this appeal.”

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Undisputedly facts are that a search and survey was conducted on the business of the assessee as well as on residential premises of the key persons on 18.12.2020, during which certain incriminating materials marked as ID Mark bearing No. SM-40; Page No.1-55, which allegedly contained the information of bogus entities and also corroborated by statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. We have examined the said materials found during the course of search, which are also available in the paper book from page no. 60 to 114 and find that these are the ledger copies of the assessee’s books of account and are not the incriminating material in any manner. Since, this is an assessment which is unabated on the date of search and therefore in order to make addition there has to be some incriminating material found during the course of search, however, material referred to by the ld. AO is not incriminating in any manner and comprised of only the ledger copies of the assessee’s account. Therefore, we are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT (A) that the materials referred to the ld. AO in the assessment order are not incriminating in nature. Thus, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition by following the decision of Page 4 of 6

ITA Nos. 2171 to 2174/KOL/2026 Sai Ply Privte Limited; A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19 Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). Consequently, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.

ITA No. 2172 to 2174/KOL/2026 7. The issue raised in these appeals are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 2171/KOL/2026 for A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to these appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos. 2172 to 2174/KOL/2026. Hence, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 03.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 03.09.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Page 5 of 6

ITA Nos. 2171 to 2174/KOL/2026 Sai Ply Privte Limited; A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

(Manish Bhoi) Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Page 6 of 6

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →