ALL INDIA FOOD SUPPY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 699/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 August 2026AY 2019-20205 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since a similar transaction with the same company was accepted as genuine in a subsequent assessment year after examination by the Assessing Officer, the addition made for the impugned assessment year treating the loan as bogus was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee took a loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- from M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. which was repaid within the same financial year. The Assessing Officer treated the loan as bogus based on a search operation on a third party, but later, for a subsequent assessment year, a similar loan from the same company was accepted as genuine by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether a loan treated as bogus based on third-party information can be sustained when similar transactions with the same lender are later accepted as genuine by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, SR. DR
Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 24.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.699/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

All India Food Supply Pvt. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Ltd. Vs P-310, CIT Road Scheme VIM, Kakurgachi, Kol- 700054. (PAN: AAECA3815A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, SR. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2018-19/10447470 dated 02.02.2026 for the assessment year 2019-20.

ITA No.699/Kol/2026

2.

Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocates represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. It was the submission that the loan was taken on 31.01.2019 and the same was returned on 02.03.2019. It was the submission that TDS has also been deducted. It was the submission that there was search operation on one Shri Romy Patni on 08.03.2022. On the basis of statement recorded from Shri Romy Patni which has been extracted by the Assessing Officer in page 25 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the loan of Rs.25,00,000/- as bogus and an accommodation entry on the ground that M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. has been treated as a jamakharchi company. It was the submission that on the basis of the same information for the assessment year 2021-22, it was noticed that the assessee had taken further loans from the said company and the reopening of the assessment has been proposed vide notice issued by ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata on 18.03.2025 u/s 148A(1) of the Act and further considering the reply of the assessee, an order has been passed on 15.04.2025 accepting the loan of Rs.25,00,000/- received during the assessment year 2021-22 from M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. The proceedings have been dropped wherein the ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

ITA No.699/Kol/2026

has taken a view that it is not fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148. It would be worthwhile to extract para 5.1 and 5.2 of the said order which reads as follows:

“5.1. The aforementioned submission of the assessee company along with supporting documents has been examined carefully and placed on record. It is mentioned that it is the contention of the assessee that it has received an amount of Rs. 25 lacs from M/s. Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. as a loan for business purposes and the same was returned back by the assessee company to the aforesaid party during the relevant financial year along with interest on the same. The assessee company in its submission has denied taking any accommodation entries from the aforesaid entities and has contended that the aforesaid transactions are loans taken by the assessee company for business exigencies. Further, the assessee has denied having any kind of knowledge or any kind of dealing with Shri Kailash Kumar Patwari. In its submission, the assessee company has further submitted that Shri Kailash Kumar Patwari has never been a director in M/s. Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. This contention of the assessee has been cross checked from the information available in the public domain and no adverse inference is drawn in this regard. 5.2. On perusal of these statements available on records on Insight Portal in detail, no evidence concrete or circumstantial has been found which can indicate that the assessee has received the aforesaid amount under consideration in the form of accommodation entries.” 3.1 It was the submission that the transaction with M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. was a genuine transaction and the subsequent actions of the Assessing Officer dropping the reopening itself showed that the transactions were genuine.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). He has submitted that why the proceedings have been dropped would have to verify with the Assessing Officer.

ITA No.699/Kol/2026

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order passed u/s 148A(d) by the ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata for the assessment year 2021-22 clearly shows the assessee has categorically claimed that he has no connection with Shri Kailash Kumar Patwari. The Assessing Officer examined the said fact for the assessment year 2021-22 and accepted the claim of the assessee. He has accepted that the transaction done by the assessee with M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. was a genuine transaction. This being so, as the similar transaction has been done for the assessment year 2019-20 being the impugned assessment year, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) treating the transaction with M/s Konark Towers Pvt. Ltd. as bogus stands deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Gopala Gurusamy] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 24/08/2026 RS

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.699/Kol/2026

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →