DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. DURA ROOF PRIVATE LIMITED, ASSAM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI BENCH”, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 123/GTY/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. BSPL (India) Private Tax, Guwahati, Limited, 5th Floor, Christian Basti, Trade House, Guwahati, Guwahati - 781005 GPO, Kamrup - 781001 [PAN: AABCB2229C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

ITA No. 143/GTY/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Dura Roof Private Tax, Central Circle-1, Assam, Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, G.S.Road, 5th Floor, Anandi Bhawan, Guwahati - 781005 SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati - 781001 [PAN: AAFCD3566J] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

ITA No. 145/GTY/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20

Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. BSPL (India) Private Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati, Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, G.S.Road, Commerce House, SRCB Guwahati - 781005 Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, Assam - 781001 [PAN: AABCB2229C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

2 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 Assessee by Shri Kishor Jain, FCA : Revenue by Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT :

ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

DCIT, Circle-1, Vs. Mahavir Prasad Jain, Room 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Hati Gola, S.R.C.B. Road, Chistian Basti, Guwahati -781005 Fancy Bazar, Guwahati - 781001 [PAN: AFXPJ4490D] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by None : Revenue by Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT :

Date of hearing : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These four appeals filed by the Revenue against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] as under:

SI ITA No. Date of order Appeal No. No. of Ld. CIT(A) 1 123/Gty/2023 06.04.2023 CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati/10054/2017-18 2 145/Gty/2023 24.04.2023 CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati/10061/2018-19

3 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 3 143/Gty.2023 24.04.2023 CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati/10056/2017-18 4 167/Gty/2025 22.04.2025 ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075712947(1) 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 145/Gty/2023.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.95,00,000/- under the head of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, by not considering the fact that during the assessment proceedings, despite of the proper opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee has failed to explain, the genuineness and financial credibility of the three entities namely, Akruti Securities Pvt Ltd, Kuber Agency Pvt Ltd and Abhinandan Complex Pvt Ltd, from whom it had taken unsecured loans. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.34,00,648/- being interest expense incurred on bogus unsecured loan, on the basis of deletion of Rs.95,00,000/- as above. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.1,15,60,656/- to the business income of the assessee, by not considering the real fact that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain and reconcile, the debit entries of Rs.1,15,60,656/- found recorded in excel sheet in the laptop. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add/modify/alter any or all the grounds during the course of hearing/pendency of appeal. 2.1 The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 123/Gty/2023.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.3,75,00,000/- under the head of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, by not considering the fact that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain, the genuineness and financial credibility of the three entities namely, Akruti Securities Pvt Ltd, Kuber Agency Pvt Ltd and Abhinandan Complex Pvt Ltd, from whom it had taken unsecured loans. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.1,31,264/- being interest expense incurred on bogus unsecured loan, on the basis of deletion of Rs.3,75,00,000/- as above. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by restricting the addition of Rs.3,29,374/- made on account of profit earned on Undisclosed Sales, to Rs.1,64,687/- (i.e. 50% of Rs.3,29,374/-) by not taking the fact into the consideration that during the

4 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 assessment proceedings, the assessee could not provide any material evidence with regard to the addition of unrecorded sale of Rs.3,29,374/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.11,65,96,985/- to the business income of the assesse, by not considering the real fact that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain and reconcile, the debit entries of Rs.11,65,96,985/- found recorded in excel sheet in the laptop. 5. The appellant craves the leave to add/modify/alter any or all the grounds during the course of hearing/pendency of appeal.” 2.2 The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 143/Gty/2023.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.3,75,00,000/- under the head of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, by not considering the fact that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain, the genuineness and financial credibility of the three entities namely, Akruti Securities Pvt Ltd, Kuber Agency Pvt Ltd and Abhinandan Complex Pvt Ltd, from whom it had taken unsecured loans. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.1,31,264/- being interest expense incurred on bogus unsecured loan, on the basis of deletion of Rs.3,75,00,000/- as above. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.3,29,374/- made on account of profit earned on Undisclosed Sales by stating that this sales does not pertains to the assessee, by not considering the facts that the document was found from the business premise of the assessee, and the onus was on the assessee to prove that the document does not belong to it, which the assessee failed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs.11,65,96,985/- to the business income of the assessee, by not considering the real fact that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain and reconcile, the debit entries of Rs.11,65,96,985/- found recorded in excel sheet in the laptop. 5. The appellant craves the leave to add/modify/alter any or all the grounds during the course of hearing/pendency of appeal.” 2.3 The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 167/Gty/2025.

5 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 solely on the premise that the same amount of addition made in the case of Goldstone Cements Limited (GCL) was deleted by the Hon'ble High Court, without appreciating that in the case of Goldstone Cements Limited addition was made on the basis of entries found from the seized material GCL-HD- 1, whereas in the case of the assessee, the addition was made on the basis of the loose sheets/notebook marked as MPJ-02/MPJ-01 on which no finding has been given either by the Hon'ble ITAT or the Hon'ble High Court. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble High Court has held the seized materials GCL-HD-1 to be not incriminating in nature to justify assessment u/s 153A of the abated(completed) assessment, whereas, in respect of seized loose sheets no such finding has been given either by the Hon'ble ITAT or the Hon'ble High Court in the respective decisions in the case of M/s Goldstone Cements Limited(GCL). 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adequately appreciating the comprehensive nature of the evidence of the seized material i.e. a bunch of loose sheets marked as MPJ-2, and statement of Shri Subhash Kumar Agarwala recorded u/s 131(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order, which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing/pendency. 3. All these four appeals were heard together during the course of hearing, it was noticed that the issues involved are common. In ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 (Mahavir Prasad Jain), none appeared on behalf of the assessee therefore, the case was hered qua the ld. DR. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 123/Gty/2023 is taken as lead case and the decision taken in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis in all the appeals.

ITA No. 123/Gty/2023 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that search and seizure action was carried out in the business premises of the assessee. A search

6 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2021 at residential and business establishments of the assessee belonging to the hawala operators group and from their certain incriminating materials were found and seized. Accordingly, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 09.11.2021 and served upon the assessee electronically and the assessee was required to furnish return of income for the relevant assessment year and responded notice under Section 153A of the Act. The assessee filed return of income on 17.01.2022 declaring income at Rs. 47,01,850/- for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee had filed return of income under Section 131 of the Act and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee on 20.02.2022 which was served upon to the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. The assessee furnished information on analysis of the statement recorded u/s 132(1) of the Act and documents submitted it was noticed that BSPL India Pvt. Ltd. had received unsecured loan from two companies:

(i) Akruti Securities Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 65,00,000/-+

(ii) Kuber Agency Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 3,10,00,000/-

7 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 accommodation entry. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to justify that above two companies satisfied the necessary ingredients of section 68 of the Act but the assessee could not justify the creditworthiness of these companies it was found during the course of statement recorded that these are Jamakharchi company. Accordingly, the AO made addition to the tune of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- and interest paid thereon. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished written submission, the Ld. CIT(A) after going through the same passed the detailed order observing that the assessment year is unabated assessment year and no any incriminating material found during the course of search and there was no assessment/reassessment pending on the date of search , therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and various other judicial forums judgement . He held that no addition can be made in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search and deleted the addition. Further, in respect of addition of Rs. 3,29,374/-, the suspicious transaction was found from hard disc marked as KKS/HD/2 and image was got printed during the course of search proceedings and statements were recorded. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee 50% was allowed accepting that there was incriminating materials. Which is as under:-

8 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 6. The Ld. CIT(A) observed as allowed 50% as under:

9 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

10 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 7. Further during the course of assessment proceeding, the AO made addition of Rs. 11,65,96,985/- on account of estimated gross profit earned by the assessee in respect of debit balance of parties appearing in the seized page no. 7 and 10 of Annexure HD 5 and this addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis and in the hands of M/s Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. (sister concern of the assessee) on protective basis. During the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 22.03.2021 at the office premises of M/s Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. at 3rd Floor, Bibekananda Complex, ABC, Guwahati, certain incriminating data has been found from a laptop. The said laptop was found in the office chamber of Shri Naresh Sharma, Sr. Accounts Manager which contains an excel file with the name “GrpSum” in folder “E:\Data\Tally\Tally.ERP9(Server)\” itself filed contains list of creditors with amount of Rs. 4,27,19,21,396/- which has been seized in one loose paper marked as “SD-5, on page number 7, 8, 9 and 10. The statement of Shri Harsh Vardhan Sahoo one of the Director of M/s Dura Roof Private Limited was recorded during the search and seizure action on oath u/s 143(4) of the Act on 22.03.2021 to explain the nature of sundry creditor mentioned in the seized itself document vis a vis sundry creditors in the books of accounts of Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. are any other group concern as some of the sundry creditor appears to be either non genuine or not part of other such account. The AO prepared the sundry creditor list from 01.04.2018 to 08.06.2018 containing debit balance

11 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 and credit balance and opening balance of transactions and closing balance. Accordingly, there is closing balance of Rs. 4,27,19,21,369.39/- debit balance, the statement/reply is reproduced in the assessment order.

12 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 sheet and seized on page no. 7 to 10 marked as SD-5 out of which reply received from 5 parties namely Assam Roofing Ltd, Shyam Traders & Suppliers, Ravi Steels Pvt Ltd, Dyna Roof Pvt Ltd and Madhav Steels and remaining three parties did not reply , it was noticed that the transaction are showing difference in the opening balance and closing balance as per their book vis a vis data seized from the office of M/s Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. as well as data provided by another group concern M/s BSPL India Pvt. Ltd. to be searched. During post search investigation statement on oath of Shri Kishor Kumar Saboo the key person and director of M/s Dura Roof Pvt Ltd and M/s BSPL(India) Pvt Ltd was recorded u/s 131 dated 25.06.2021 and was again asked vide Q.29 of his statement on oath to explain the nature of creditors as mentioned in the list in excel document found and seized from the office of M/s Dura Roof Pvt Ltd during the course of search operation on 22.03.2021.He denied that these are related to them the AO after analysis of the statements/submissions and documents and questions30 to 37 , page No. 7 -10 found the assessee group was unable to explain the nature of transaction found from the seized documents at M/s Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. and seized as bunch of loose documents on page 7, 8 and 9 vide identification marked as SD-5. During the course of search and seizure action on 22.03.2022 he also observed that in one hand the assessee accepted that their conducted business transaction with certain parties shown the list but at the same time they have not accepted that the transaction shown because parties

13 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 mentioned in the list belong to their group concerns therefore, the total transaction outstanding on 08.06.2018 of Rs. 427,19,21,369/- which pertains to FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 remain unexplained out of Rs. 3,88,65,66,163/- pertain to FY 2017-18 and amount of Rs. 38,53,55,205/- pertains to FY 2018-19. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee and opportunity was granted to the assessee to explain the nature of transactions carried out by the assessee and assessee was also asked whether the debit balance should not be considered as receivables against the sales made to these parties by the assessee and these transactions were not reconcile with the regular books of accounts maintained with the assessee company. Therefore, after considering the various judicial precedents the entire balance calculated of Rs. 427,19,21,369 were considered as sales and the GP rate was adopted @ 3% for both the years. Accordingly, he made addition of Rs. 11,65,98,965/- for AY 2018-19 and Rs. 1,15,60,656/- for AY 2019-20 and completed the assessment on 30.03.2022 u/s 153A of the Act.

14 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd reported in (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) in regard to the second issue of unaccounted sales he accepted 50% sales or unrecorded sales . At the one hand, he noted that there was incriminating material found and unrecorded in the books of the assessee and restricted the addition up to 50%, further in respect of addition of GP addition @ 3% of Rs. 11,65,96,985/- he deleted the addition observing as under:

“In light of above discussions, perusal of facts stated in the impugned Assessment Order and deriving strength from rationes of the judicial precedents referred above, it is held that the AO had failed to bring any evidence on record which would even remotely corroborate / confirm the contents of the seized excel sheet (i.e. Pages 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the Annexure SD- 5). The whole addition has been made based on non-application of mind and without conducting any enquiry at all. The contents of the seized excel sheet has been firstly alleged as balances of Sundry Creditors and finally without any material or reasons, the excel sheet was treated as Undisclosed Sales of the Appellant. Even the search conducted in the case of the Appellant did not unearth any evidence or material which would prove the contents of the impugned excel sheet. Furthermore, considering the peculiar facts of the excel sheet as discussed in paras (p), (q) and (r.) supra, there is no hesitation to hold that the impugned excel sheet is a “Dumb Document”. Accordingly, the impugned addition of Rs. 11,65,96,985/- made by the AO on account of purported profit from alleged undisclosed sales is, hereby, deleted. The instant ground of appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 10. In the light of the above discussion, and accordingly he partly allowed the appeal.

15 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

16 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

17 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

18 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

19 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

20 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

21 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

22 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

23 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

24 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025

25 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 sales, accordingly he has given relief Rs. 1,64,687/- out of the addition made by AO of Rs. 3,29,374/-. Once the incriminating material is found during the course of search and the seizure the AO assess/reassess the total income of the assessee as per section 153A(b) r.w.. proviso of the Act, the AO has right to assess the total income of the assessee including those observations which are also not related with the incriminating documents which are disclosed or not but the income is to be computed as per the Income tax Act, the total income has been defined in section 2(45) of the Act. He further submitted that while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has without referring to the provision of Income tax Act not properly deleted the addition he has gone on wrong footings which is not as per the provision of the Act. Further requested that the order of the AO should be upheld.

26 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 completing the assessment during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed written submission which is incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed long order and he has deleted the additions made by the AO towards cash credit u/s 68 of the Act observing that there is no any incriminating material found on this issue and relied on the judgement of Ho’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Abhisar Buildwell noted Supra. We are agree that in case of no any incriminating materials found during the course of search u/s 132 or 132A no addition can be made for the completed assessment. But in the case on hand the ld. CIT(A) him self accepted noted supra that there were unrecorded sales were found and he restricted the GP addition to the extent of 50% then the AO has jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income as per section 153A which is supported by the above judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court . For the sake of convenience we are reproducing some relevant part of the judgement which is as under:-

27 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is an- swered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. Civil Appeal Nos.7738-7739/2021, 7736-7737/2021, 7732-7735/2021 and 7740-7743/2021

28 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 “153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of reli- gion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prej- udicial to maintenance of harmony.— (1)Whoever—(a)by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b)commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c)organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— (2)Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.” 18. On carefully reading of the above section, it is noted that the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, once any incriminating documents found in respect of any undisclosed income that the AO has power to assess the total income of the assessee for the year consideration all the sources as per the provision of Income-tax-Act even in case of completed assessment/unabated assessment Since in the case of the assessee during the course of search some incriminating documents were found . The incriminating documents / materials has not been defined in the

29 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 income Tax Act but it is considered as those materials /income which are not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. While deciding the issue of Ld. CIT(A) forgot that there was incriminating material found during the course of search at para No. 7, page no. 192 and 193, he himself to accept that there is incriminating material found and the AO can assess and reassess the total income as per section 153A of the Act. Accordingly the deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified.

30 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 observation of the ld. CIT (A) is applicable in those cases where no any incriminating materials found at all during the course of search u/s 1312 or 132A. Therefore, we are in agreement with the arguments advance by the Ld.CIT DR and written submission furnished (supra) we also noted that while completing the assessment u/s 153A of the Act, the AO has not properly adjudicated the issue on the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search and seizure action. We noted in addition in regard to 3rd issue regarding estimation of profit the AO has noted various places creditors and credit balance and debtors and debit balances, finally he considered the turnover and profit was estimated without any basis. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of AO for de-novo decision and decide the issue as per law and he has to find out exact nature of transactions whether these entries are cash credit , sales or purchases without influencing from the previous orders. The assessee is directed to substantiate with cogent documents and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

ITA No. 145/Gty/2023 ITA No. 143/Gty/2023 ITA No. 167/Gty/2025

31 ITA Nos. 145, 123 & 143 /GTY/2023 ITA No. 167/GTY/2025 21. Since the facts and issues involved in these appeals are identical, except difference in figures or calculations, therefore, our findings/decision given above in ITA No. 123/Gty/2023 will, mutatis mutandis, apply to ITA Nos. 145/Gty/203, ITA No. 143/Gty/2023 and ITA No. 167/Gty/2025 as well and consequently the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 12.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Vice President Accountant Member

Dated: 12.06.2026 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