DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA vs. LUMINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.08.2025& 01.08.2025 for the AYs2017-18& 2018-19.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is 2. a delay of 34 days in filing the appeals by the department and in support of this a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the

For A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 2970/KOL/2025 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 and 2 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹1,40,00,00/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit in respect of unsecured loans received by the assessee.

3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act on 25.10.2017, declaring a loss of ₹9,88,605/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, accepting the returned of income. A search u/s 132 of the Act as well as survey u/s 133A of the Act were conducted on the Goel Group of cases on 15.03.2022. During the course of search, incriminating material/ documents were found from the premises which pertained to various persons including the assessee. The assessee is one of the group company and was also covered under the said search. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2024, and the assessee complied with the same by filing the return of income on 22.05.2024, declaring same income as declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee complied with the said notices by furnishing the detailed reply along with the evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing

3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by taking into account the contentions and submission of the assessee. The ld. CIT (A) also noted that the ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act but there was no clarity about fade of the replies. The ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee has furnished all the details and evidences qua the loan creditors. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (A) noted that the loan creditors responded to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act filing all the details comprising audited accounts, ITRs, bank statements, etc. Finally, the ld. CIT (A) on page

“Summing up, the appellant company had prima facie discharged its burden to prove identity and creditworthiness of the loan party by submitting detailed submissions including copy of MCA database, ledger copies, loan confirmation, copy of audited accounts, copy of extracts of bank statement etc. It is seen that all the loans have been repaid in subsequent years. Interest has been duly accounted on year-to-year basis and TDS was duly deducted thereon. In this connection, reference was made to following judgements that there is no scope of treating unexplained cash credit when there is repayment of loan in subsequent years. 1. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Apex Therm Packaging Private Limited 222 Taxman 125 2. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT 9 Vs. M/s Sreeleathers 448 ITR 332 3. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Overtop Marketing (P.) Ltd [2023] 148 taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta) [03-01-2023] Thus based on the discussions above, I am of the view that the appellant company had discharged its burden to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan parties by submitting detailed submissions including copy of MCA database, ledger copies, loan confirmation, copy of audited accounts, copy of extracts of bank statement to establish the identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors and genuineness of the transactions with the said loan party during the instant year. The loans have been repaid in the subsequent years. The loan creditors had substantial net-worth of its own. There is no finding in the assessment order which could doubt the genuiness of the transactions.

‘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]’ 3.3.1. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in number of cases namely PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited in ITAT/133/2025, IA No.GA/2/2025 vide order dated 05.08.2025, PCIT Vs. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/76/2025, IA No. GA/1/2025 dated 10.06.2025, PCIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. ITAT/268/2024, IA no. GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024 dated 17.12.2024, PCIT Vs. M/s Edmond Finvest Pvt. ltd., in ITAT/28/2024, GA/2/2024 dated 26.02.2024, PCIT Vs. Parwati Lakh Udyong, ITAT/2/2024, IA No.GA/1/2024 dated 19.02.2024. In all the above decisions the Hon'ble court has held that where the assessee has filed all the evidences qua the loan creditors before the ld. AO and loans are also repaid then the same cannot be added us/ 68 of the Act if the assessee has furnished all the evidences qua the loan creditors before the AO and AO has not done any

"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 that the said two cash creditors had been holding there identity, creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of the loan transactions. 3.2 The appellate authority observed that, "In this regard, it has been noticed that ledger accounts and confirmations of the aforesaid two parties have been provided by the appellant to the AO in the assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the AO also carried out the independent inquiries u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act and in compliance thereto both the companies have submitted the requisite information." 3.3 The information supplied by assessee was duly noticed by appellate authority and facts in that regard were recorded also to arrive at a finding that the unsecured loans to the aforesaid parties have been paid by account payee cheques from the bank account of the assessee which was not in dispute, muchless in doubt. The accounts were finally settled with the repayment of the loan to the lender companies. 3.4 When the revenue preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal confirmed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal referred to the decision of Durga Prasad More (82) ITR 540 and also in Sumati Dayal (214) ITR 801, to further record on the basis of the facts that the assessee had furnished the details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income tax returns, balance sheet etc. It was also recorded that notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity of the parties could not be, therefore disputed, recorded the tribunal. The aspect was also noticed that the assessee was not beneficiary of the loan received by it and the loan was repaid by the assessee in the subsequent year. It led to unacceptable conclusion that the impugned transaction was a business transaction between

Order pronounced on 16.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 16.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata