M/S. LUPIN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(3),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 629/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 July 2026AY 2012-20135 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no entry of the Rs. 2,80,800/- transaction in the assessee's or M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar's bank accounts, nor in the loan confirmation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deemed incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- from M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar, which was confirmed by the lower authorities. The assessee claimed that no such transaction occurred and provided loan confirmations and bank statements.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- was justified when there was no evidence of the transaction in the bank accounts or confirmations provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 629/KOL/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-2013

M/s Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata, 3A, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Saranti, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - Chowringhee Square, 700001 Kolkata - 700069 [PAN: AAACL5335N] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Gourav Maloo, AR Revenue by : Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2026

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 19.01.2026, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084902906(1) challenging the addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- made by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 18.09.2017 declaring income of Rs. 6,62,310/- claiming

2 ITA No. 629/KOL/2026 M/s Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. refund of Rs. 1,81,800/-. Later on, as per the information received the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act following the due procedure for reopening as per information received from authentic source that Sri Sukumar Sumanta (PAN – ALQPS7925M) having account with ING Vysya Bank bearing No. 504011006553 is employee of M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar whose is Sri Ratan Lal Maloo. Sri Sukumar Samanta in this case is suspected to be working as a conduit in the business activities of this employer. As per FIU-IND database M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar is also maintaining A/c with ING Vysya Bank bearing No. 504011005140 where substantial cash transaction was found to exist.

3.

On examination of bank A/c of M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar it is found that during the FY 2011-12 large amount of deposits has been made into account followed by immediate transfer into other intermediary accounts. The transaction appear to be circular in nature and accounts appear to be part of chain accounts used for routing large fund transfer and majority of funds raised through deposit were transferred to the accounts of other interlinked companies through cheques/RTGS and ultimately to the beneficiary accounts of the company. From the data base, it was found that M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar has filed its ITR for Rs. 5,86,654/- only which do not support the large financial transaction made during the year under consideration in

3 ITA No. 629/KOL/2026 M/s Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. his bank account referred above. It can thus be concluded that the beneficiaries brought back their unaccounted income in the regular books of accounts through layering activity involving banking channels. The AO noted that the assessee M/s Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. is one of the beneficiary company received fund of Rs. 2,80,000/- from M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar from FY 2011-12 relating to AY 2012-13. During the course of reassessment proceeding various statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of reassessment proceeding, the assessee furnished various documents after considering the documents, confirmation and bank statement, the AO was not specified and added to the income of the assessee of Rs. 2,80,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished loan confirmation, bank statement and financial statement and the Ld.CIT(A) also did not accept the submission of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved from above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

6.

The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submission made before lower authorities and submitted that the loan confirmations from Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar was furnished. During the course of reassessment

4 ITA No. 629/KOL/2026 M/s Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. proceeding as well as first appellate proceeding and bank statement of both the parties were also furnished, the loan confirmation has been accepted by the AO, no any adverse remarks made by the AO and he further submitted that there is no any credit of Rs. 2,80,800/- in the bank account of the assessee as well as there is no any entry in the bank account of Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar how the AO got information that the assessee was beneficiary, there is no transactions happened between the parties, no addition can be made.

7.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities.

8.

Considering the rival submission, I noted that here the case was reopened observing that the assessee was beneficiary of Rs.2,80,800/- from Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar as per the Investigation Wing report. However, on going through the documents filed by the assessee i.e. confirmation loans, bank account of the assessee and Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar had carefully examined. I did not find any entry made either debit or credit and the confirmation submitted by the assessee and in the bank statement . The AO has not rejected or doubted on the confirmation and there is no any entry in the confirmation of the assessee received from Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar for Rs. 2,80,800/-. Accordingly, I noted that there is no any transaction happened between two parties and assessee

5 ITA No. 629/KOL/2026 M/s Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. has not received any mount from Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is wrong, the addition made by the AO is deleted.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 06.07.2026.

Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Dated: 06.07.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →