INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. KAMINI FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.01.2025 for the AYs2015-16 & 2018-19.

A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No. 633/KOL/2025 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in law by taking into account additional evidences from the appellant

A.Y. 2018-19 ITA No. 634/KOL/2025 6. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the deletion of addition by the ld. CIT (A) of ₹2,64,48,180/- as made by the ld. AO in respect of unsecured loans taken by the assessee during the year.

6.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee has taken unsecured loans of ₹2,59,29,589/- from M/s Aneri Fincap Limited. The ld. AO had information in his possession that the said loans were nothing but accommodation entries. Accordingly, the ld. AO after passing the order u/s 148 A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2022, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022. The assessee filed the return of income on 21.04.2020. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued. The assessee replied the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO by furnishing various

6.2. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings, allowed the appeal of the assessee after passing a very comprehensive order and after recording a finding of fact that the assessee has furnished before the ld. AO all the evidences and details qua the loan creditors and also the fact that the said loan was repaid during the year completely. Thus, by relying on the decisions as discussed from page no.74 to 82, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

6.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee raised loans during the year on which interest has been paid after deduction of TDS at source of (₹2,59,29,589/- + 5,18,591/-). The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings furnished all the details and evidences qua the loan creditors comprising names, addresses, PAN Nos., ITRs, audited accounts, loan confirmations, copies of MCA data base, Bank statements, etc. and prove the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AO referred to the material found during the course of search that these were the bogus loans taken by the assessee

‘In the absence of any such finding, it is held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and rightly interfered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal re-appreciated the factual position and agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal apart from taking into consideration, the legal effect of the statement of AKA also took note of the fact that the notices which were issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the lenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which were placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book. These materials were available on the file of the Assessing Officer and there is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, the tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. [Para 5]’

"3. The issue in this case arose in respect of the assessment year 2012-2013. It appears that the two loan transactions of Rs. 8,50,00,000/- and Rs. 23,70,00,000/- received by respondent assessee from one M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited and M/s. Satya Retail Private Limited were treated by assessing officer to be sham in the sense that the creditworthiness etc. of the giver of the loan were not established. Accordingly, the assessing officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. 3.1 While the assessing officer dealt with unexplained cash credit from the M/s. Satya Retail Private Limited and from M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited in his order in paras 5.1 and 5.2 respectively, the Commissioner of Income-tax in the appeal preferred by assessee found on facts and the material before it

6.4. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 24.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 24.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata