DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA vs. JAYA COCONUT OIL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Aआयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA �ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट�य एवं �ी �द�प कुमार चौबे, �या�यक सद�य के सम� [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata Vs. Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd.

(PAN: AABCJ 2038 F) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 02.07.2026 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 13.07.2026 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Appellant/ Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA �नधा�रती क� ओर से Vidhi Ladia, AR For the Respondent/ Smt. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. राज�व क� ओर से DR

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.10.2025 for the AY 2018-19. The assessee, on the other hand, has filed application in terms of Rule 27 of ITAT, Rules to support the order of the ld. CIT(A).

2 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd.

3 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. 1.2. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had argued that the appellant had placed on record all relevant contemporaneous evidences to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The loan was obtained and repaid through proper banking channels. The loan creditors were regularly assessed to tax and their financials showed that they had sufficient creditworthiness to advance loans to the appellant. The appellant also cited various judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Courts and ITATs in support of its argument.

1.3. Firstly, on the issue of the AO’s observation that the companies are identified as shell entities, from which the AO had drawn adverse inference:

1.3.1. Merely because the companies are identified as shell entities, that alone does not justify an addition under Section 68 without further inquiry into the genuineness o fthe transaction. When the appellant, during the course of re-assessment proceedings had duly complied with the notices by submitting complete documents and evidences to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, the onus shifted back to the Assessing Officer to rebut the same. It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer either to point out specific defects or inconsistencies in the documents submitted by the appellant or to conduct further independent enquiries to verify the information/documents submitted by the appellant. However, neither of these steps were taken in the present case. Instead, the Assessing Officer’s approach is rudimentary and mechanical and blindly relied upon the information received from the Investigation Wing, without applying his own mind or undertaking any substantive verification. This approach is contrary to settled principles of law which mandate that the Assessing Officer must form an independent and reasoned belief before making additions to income. The information from Investigation Wing in isolation cannot lead to additions in hands of the appellant. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income tax v. Overtop Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that: …..

1.3.2. Further it is to be noted that where the assessee had furnished full details/documents regarding the creditors, it is up to the AO to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The AO had blindly followed the information available with him sans further enquiry concluded the loan creditors being shell entity and the loans are bogus in nature. The documents annexed to the reply against notices issued time to time during the course of re-assessment proceedings were to establish the identity of the lenders, to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to establish the creditworthiness of the lenders. Thus, going by the records placed by the assessee, it could be safely held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden and the burden shifts on the assessing officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do. No specific defect, inconsistency, or inadmissibility had been pointed out by the AO in the documents submitted during the course of re-assessment proceedings. However, the AO had brushed aside the documents and proceeded to make the addition.

4 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. 1.3.3. From the details on record, it is noted that the lender M/s VRC Infotech Private Limited from which the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs.68,00,000/- during the year, is in the business of money lending and making investments in bodies corporate. The MCA records shows that the lender company is active as on the current date having CIN as U74999WB2011PTC157492. It is observed that M/s VRC Infotech Private Limited had sufficient own funds of more than Rs.50 crores to advance the loan of Rs.68,00,000/- to the appellant. The said lender is noted to be a regular income-tax assessee reporting taxable income. It is further noted that the said loan was repaid in full by the appellant in the subsequent FY 2018-19. So, perusal of the information available, it can be said that the appellant has discharged its onus of substantiating the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditor M/s VRC Infotech Private Limited and the loan transactions.

1.3.4. It is also worthwhile to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Pawan Kumar Bansal vs. AU (ITA No.1223/Kol/2023) dated 21.02.2024 which is found to be squarely applicable in the present case. In the instant case also, the appellant had obtained loan from the same money lender, M/s VRC Infotech Ltd. Like in the present case, the AO disbelieved the genuineness of the loan by alleging the lender to be a paper entity and because the lender did not comply with the notices as well. On appeal, the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata is noted to have deleted the addition by holding as under:

“4.2. Considering the over all facts of the case and documentary evidences placed on record, we find that assessee took a loan from VRC. It is undisputed that the said loan is interest bearing loan which has been taken through normal banking channel and has also been repaid along with interest and TDS through proper banking channel. All the documentary evidences are explained which were placed before the authorities below. There is no discrepancy which has been pointed out by any of the authorities below in respect of any of the documentary evidence placed on record. Without pointing out any discrepancy in the documents placed on record and without undertaking any active steps to conduct appropriate enquiry and examination, ld.CIT(A) has in a casual way stated that proper evidence furnished by the assessee is of no consequence. The lender has reported its income in the return filed and its financial highlights extracted above have also not been disputed. Considering all these stated facts and documentary details, we do not find any reason to sustain the addition made by the Ld. AO. We accordingly, delete the addition of Rs.38 lakhs made u/s. 68 and allow the ground taken by the assessee in this regard.”

1.3.5. Similarly, with regard to the loans aggregating to Rs.1,32,00,000/- received from the other three loan creditors namely M/s Nextgen Health Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Parasmani Planning & Development Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Traditional Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., itis noted that these lenders are engaged in the business of investment and moneylending and are regular filers of income tax return. It is observed that they have sufficient own funds to advance loans to the appellant.

Nextgen Health Solution Pvt. Ltd. had advanced loan to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-during the relevant AY 2018-19 to the appellant company. The CIN of the lender isU74900WB2011PTC156735. The company is engaged in the business of investment and

5 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. money lending. It is observed that M/s Nextgen Health Solution Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient own funds of more than Rs.52 crores to advance the loan of Rs.40,00,000/-to the appellant. The said lender is noted to be a regular income-tax assessee reporting taxable income. It is further noted that the said loan was repaid in full by the appellant in the subsequent FY 2018-19.

It is further noted that the lender M/s Parasmani Planning & Development Pvt. Ltd. from which the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs.42,00,000/- during the year, is in the business of money lending and making investments in bodies corporate. The MCA records shows that the lender company is active as on the current date having CIN as U74900W82010PTC156432. It is observed that M/s Parasmani Planning &Development Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient own funds of more than Rs.51 crores to advance the loan of Rs.42,00,000/- to the appellant. The said lender is noted to be a regular income-tax assessee reporting taxable income. It is further noted that the said loan was repaid in full by the appellant in the subsequent FY 2018-19.It is also noted that the lender M/s Traditional VyapaarPvt. Ltd. from which the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs.70,00,000/- during the year, is in the business of money lending and making investments in bodies corporate. The MCA records shows that the lender company is active as on the current date having CIN asU51109WB2008PTC125949. It is observed that M/s Traditional Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient own funds of more than Rs.2.7 crores to advance the loan ofRs.70,00,000/- to the appellant. The said lender is noted to be a regular income-tax assessee reporting taxable income. It is further noted that the said loan was repaid in full by the appellant in the subsequent FY 2018-19.

The loans obtained from these parties in FY 2017-18are found to have been repaid by the appellant in full, in the subsequent FY 2018-19. All these three lender companies are found to have been active at the time when the loan(s) were advanced and repaid. So, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors and the loan transactions stand proved.

1.3.6. The AO had further observed that though these lenders had reported substantial turnover but they had also incurred several expenses and had therefore reported meagre profits which did not commensurate with the loans advanced by them and it therefore raised doubts on their creditworthiness. The fact that these lenders did not derive sufficient profits during the year cannot be the sole determinative factor to doubt their creditworthiness. It is noted that, the lenders have confirmed the loans advanced by them and the source of funds have been noted by the AO to be from regular banking channel. If the AO doubted the nature of expensesclaimed by these lenders, then the correct recourse was to proceed against thelenders rather than doubting the genuineness of loans advanced by them to theappellant. On these facts, it is viewed therefore, that nothing much turns on the factthat the lenders did not have sufficient profits in the relevant year.

So, the appellant had discharged the primary onus cast upon it to substantiate theunsecured loans received by it during the year. The identity of the loan creditorcompanies is established as all of them have PANs and are found to be have beenregularly filing their respective returns of income. The creditworthiness of the loancreditors is established from the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accountsas discussed above. The genuineness of the transaction is

6 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. established form the factthat both the acceptance and repayment of loan has been affected through bankingchannel, as evidenced from the bank statements.

The reliance is placed by the appellant on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Sree Leathers (448 ITR 332) where it is held that : ….

The case cited above is found to be relevant to the present case. In the instant case also, the assessee had received loan from various companies. The assessee had furnished the copy of PAN card, the income tax acknowledgement, copy of bank statement, certificate of incorporation, master data from the register of companies of the lenders. Like in the present case, the AO held that the creditworthiness was in doubt and that the transactions were in nature of accommodation entries. On appeal the Hon’ble High Court held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction and therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition u/s 68 of the Act.

1.4. Secondly, on the issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act remained unserved

1.4.1 The appellant had pointed out that, the nature of relationship with these lenders was that of debtor-creditor which is limited to advancement of loan, and thereafter refund of the same. The appellant had further stated that these loans were availed in FY 2017-18 and repaid in the same year or in the immediately succeeding FY 2018-19. The impugned enquiries u/s 133(6) and through the Inspector was being undertaken in the year 2023 and therefore it cannot be said to be unusual if the appellant was unaware of the whereabouts of these lenders, in absence of any continuing relationship with them. The contemporaneous fact remains that the impugned loans were received through banking channel, the loans were refunded and loan confirmations were also obtained. Hence, later on if the lenders have since dissolved or have gone out of business, the loan transactions entered in the year in which they were actively carrying on business i.e. FY 2017-18 cannot be alleged to be non-genuine. According to appellant, it was purely a case of finance/money lending transaction and thus under the given circumstances therefore, the loan cannot be doubted on the ground that these lenders were not traced at a later date, particularly when the loan had already been refunded much earlier. Having regard to the foregoing contentions and the fact that the requisite documentary evidences had already been furnished by the appellant before the AO, this particular reasoning cannot be decisive to justify the impugned addition.

In this context, reliance is placed in the decision of Hon’ble ITAT of Kolkata in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir-3, Asansol vs. Bharat Hi-Tech (Cement) (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 432 (Kolkata - Trib.)/[2016] 176 TTJ 166 (Kolkata - Trib.)[06-01- 2016] where it was held that – ….

In the case cited above, the AO had disallowed the purchase expenses and added back to the total income of the appellant on the ground that no reply has been received from the supplier as the supplier was not found as notice u/s 133(6) could not be served on supplier at the given

7 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. address. Jurisdictional ITAT had deleted the addition with the observation that this alone could not be the deciding factor for treating the purchases as bogus and the AO should have verified from the bankers of the assessee as to whether the payments made by the assessee through account payee cheques had indeed been credited only to the account of the supplier or not.

The factual matrix is similar to the instant case. In both the cases, no confirmation has been received from the loan creditors and the AO had made additions on that ground. The appellant had produced all the evidences and details before the AO both during the re-assessment proceedings, the AO had brushed aside the documents submitted by the appellant. The AO did not find any discrepancy in the details and evidences filed, then as held by various Courts disallowance cannot be made. It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer either to point out specific defects or inconsistencies in the documents submitted by the appellant or to conduct further independent enquiries to verify the genuineness of the document/information furnished by the appellant. However, neither of these steps were taken in the present case. Instead, the Assessing Officer’s approach is rudimentary and mechanical and without applying his own mind or undertaking any substantive verification. This approach is contrary to settled principles of law which mandate that the Assessing Officer must form an independent and reasoned belief before making additions to income.

1.4.2. Reliance is further placed on the following decisions of the High Courts and Tribunals wherein it was held that non-appearance or non-compliance of directors of the loan creditors does not make the loans in-genuine or bogus and is therefore not a sufficient ground to make addition u/s 68 of the Act, thereby deleting the addition u/s68 of the Act.

a) CIT Vs Orissa Coprn (P.) Ltd (159 ITR 78) [Supreme Court] b) DCIT Vs Rohini Builders (127 Taxman 523) [Gujarat High Court] c) CIT vs Raj Kumar Agarwal (ITA No.179/2008) [Allahabad HC] d) ITO vs Devinder Singh Shant (ITA No.208/Kol/2009) [Kol ITAT] e) ITO Vs Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) [Kol ITAT] f) S.K. Bothra& Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer (347 ITR 347) [Cal HC] g) Crystal Networks (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (353 ITR 171) [Cal HC]

So, it can be concluded that addition cannot be made solely on basis that notice under section 133(6) could not be served on supplier at given address.

1.5. Thirdly, on the issue of the statements of Shri Pranaw KumarModiand Shri Pankaj Agarwal:

1.5.1. It is also seen that the AO had referred to the purported statements of Mr. Pranab Kumar Modi & Mr. Pankaj Agarwal to justify the impugned addition. In this context, the appellant had pointed out that the AO had extensively extracted their statements in the assessment order and showed that there was nothing contained therein which suggested that they were controlling or managing the entities or that the loans obtained by the appellant was bogus. Further, in the statement, Shri Agarwal wherein had admitted that he was involved in providing accommodation entries till 2011 and since thereafter, he was involved in the

8 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. business of film production. The impugned loan transactions which took place in the relevant FY2017-18 cannot by any stretch of imagination be alleged to be an accommodation entry. Having considered the same, it can be stated that the statement of Shri Pankaj Agarwal has no relevance so far as the appellant’s case is concerned. Likewise, it is seen that there is no averment or incriminating statement given by Shri Pranav Modi against the appellant. Hence, even this statement is found to be of no assistance in the given facts of the present case.

1.5.2. It is submitted by the appellant that the AO is grossly unjustified in making addition relying on the statement of Mr. Pranab Kumar Modi and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal where the AO neither provided the copy of the statement of Mr. Pranab Kumar Modi and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal recorded u/s 131 of the Act nor any opportunity of cross examining the statement giver was provided. Instead, he merely reproduced the extracts of statements of Mr. Pranab Kumar Modi and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal recorded u/s 131 of the Act. It is well settled position of law that any adverse inference drawn based on the statement which has not been provided to the appellant and / or no opportunity of cross examination provided to the appellant will result in gross miscarriage of justice and therefore renders the impugned assessment order to be null and void. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Andaman timber Industries Ltd Vs Collector of Customs, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows:- ….

1.5.3. Moreover, the appellant drawn my attention towards the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Mani Square Ltd. vs ACIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com452 (Kolkata - Trib.), wherein the AO similarly on the basis of the statement of Mr.Pankaj Agarwal has alleged that the assessee has received accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan and the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata on perusal of the facts concluded that the AO blindly relied upon the statement of Mr. Pankaj Agarwal without conducting any independent examination or providing cross examination opportunity to the assessee and therefore the addition made simply on the basis of the statement is unsustainable and be deleted.

1.5.4. As stated above, there is nothing contained in the alleged statement(s) on basis of which it can be concluded that the loan transactions between the appellant and the lending entities was non genuine. It is also noted that there was no tangible material or evidence with the AO to dispute the genuineness of the loan transaction. Neither the copy of the statement of Mr. Pankaj Agarwal and / or Mr. Pranab Modi recorded u/s 131 of the Act was provided to the appellant nor the opportunity to cross-examine the statement was given to the appellant. Rather the impugned order has been passed purely on surmises and conjectures. On the other hand, the appellant has already explained that it had obtained loans in the course and for the purpose of its business from M/s VRC Infotech Private Limited, M/s Nextgen Health Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Parasmani Planning & Development Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Traditional Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant AY 2018-19. The appellant had submitted all the details along with the supporting documents viz. audited financial statements, ledger of the lenders, loan confirmation, bank statement, ITR of lender, etc. to substantiate the identity and credit worthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transaction. Further, the loan obtained during the relevant FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19) has been repaid in full in FY 2018-19 (AY 2019-20). Thus, the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made by the AO by way of unexplained

9 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is wholly unjustified and unsustainable and thus the addition ofRs.2,00,00,000/- made in the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 passed u/s 147 of the Act deserves to be deleted.

1.5.5. Section 68 of the Income tax Act states that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by it is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The crucial words in the said provision are "assessee offers no explanation". This would mean where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regard the amount credited in the books maintained by the assessee. No doubt the Income-tax Act places the burden of proof on the tax payer. However, this is only the initial burden. In cases where the assessee offers an explanation to the credit by placing evidence regarding the identity of the investor or lender alongwith their conformations, it has been held that the assessee has discharged the initial burden and, therefore, the burden shifts on the Assessing Officer to examine the source of the credit so as to be justified in referring to section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. The explanation given by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient ground on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds.

There is no evidence brought on record by the assessing officer to connect the said entry operator with the loan transaction done by the assessee. Therefore, the statement is of little avail and could not have been the basis for making allegations. The assessing officer ignored the settled legal principle and in spite of the assessee having offered the explanation with regard to the loan transaction, no finding has been recorded as regards the satisfaction on the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, the assessing officer ignored the basic tenets of law before invoking his power under section 68 of the Act.

1.6. The appellant argued that the entire loan amounts were repaid in the subsequent years. Further the AO has not disputed the repayment of loan. When the unsecured loan has been repaid within a short period of time, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition under section 68 of the Act. The details of the loan transaction over the years are as under – …. Perusal of the ledger copies cited above, it is evident that the loan taken during the F.Y. 2017- 18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 by the appellant were repaid in the financial year 2018-19 relevant to the A.Y. 2019-20 through banking channel. 1.6.1. As the loan was repaid in the subsequent years and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee was a beneficiary of the loan. In this connection, the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ambe Tradecorp Pvt Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat) where it has been held as follows: ….. It is, therefore, held that since the appellant had discharged its onus of proving the identity of the loan creditor, which in the instant case, having PAN and filed the return of income as well. Further, the creditworthiness of the transaction is proved with the fact that they have

10 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. been carried through banking channel and sufficient funds were available with loan creditors to explain the amount of loan given. The genuineness of the transaction is proved in the fact that the assessee company is carrying regular business activity and the loan was also repaid at a later date, and income tax return has been filed by the loan creditors.

1.6.2. The loan taken had been repaid at a subsequent date. Once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into isolation after ignoring the debit entries despite the debit entries being carried out in the later years.

Further, reliance is also placed in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income tax vs. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay)/[2024]299 Taxman 460 (Bombay)[18-06-2024] where it has been held that – ….

Therefore, in view of the above findings and catena of judicial decisions, there is no justification on the part of the AO for invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/-made by the AO is deleted.

1.7. Since the addition made in respect of the principal amount of loan ofRs.2,00,00,000/- obtained during the year have already been deleted on merit, the disallowance of commission paid on such loan to the tune of Rs 1,00,000/-, being consequential in nature has no legs to stand upon and hence deleted.”

11 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. Infotech Pvt Ltd is upheld, then the ld. AO did not have any jurisdiction to make separate additions in respect of loans availed from M/s Nextgen Solution Pvt Ltd and M/s Parasmani Planning & Development Pvt Ltd, as they were not subject to matter of information recorded u/s 148A(b) / order u/s148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, once the very income which was stated to have escaped in the information for reopening did not find its place in the assessment order then the very jurisdiction of the AO fails and consequently no other additions can be made. The ld. AR has in defence of the arguments relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT (E) Vs. B.P. Poddar Foundation For Education (148 taxmann.com 125)and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (473 ITR 595).

12 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd. 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 TradecomPvt. 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 these 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. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or defect in the order of the ld. CIT (A) which warrant our interference deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार /चौबे) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 13th July, 2026 SM, Sr. PS

13 I.T.A. No.3263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata 2. Respondent – M/s Jaya Coconut Oil Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 5(N)(I), The Millennium, 235/2A, A.J.C Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. 3. Ld. CIT(A)- 26, Kolkata 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata