BIHARIJI CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 06.03.2026 for the AYs2013-14 & 2014-15.

A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 1305/KOL/2026 2. The issue raised in grounds no.3 and 4 is against the assessment order framed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)], dated 25.09.2021, being

2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2013, declaring total income at ₹61,10,021/- . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was farmed on 17.03.2016, assessing the income at ₹74,27,550/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened by the ld. AO u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act after the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing that assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2020, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and thereafter the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued on 08.02.2021, which was also not replied by the assessee. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued on 15.09.2021, which also remained non-complied. Finally, the assessment was framed by the ld. AO on the basis of the information available on record. The ld. AO treated the amount of unsecured loans of ₹94,50,000/- received from M/s Kirlampudi commerce Pvt. Ltd. and interest thereon of ₹2,08,836/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee.

2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer.

2.4. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessment has been framed by the NFAC after issuing notice as per the provisions of Section 151A of the Act which were brought on the statute book with effect from 1.11.2020. Therefore, the legal issue raised by the assessee may kindly be dismissed.

2.5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we note that the assessment has been framed by the NFAC vide order dated 25.09.2021. We further find that the Section 151A of the Act deals with the

“11. We have perused the section of Section 151A of the Act, which deals with the faceless assessment of income escaping assessment and was brought on the statute book by taxation and other law (realization and amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020, with effect from 01.11.2020 which was notified on 29.03.2022 vide notification no.18/2022/F. No. 370142/16/2022-TPL(Part)]. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were taken by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi by issuing notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.02.2022 and thereafter the assessment was framed accordingly after issuing show cause notice which in our opinion is without jurisdiction. The provisionw of Section 151A of the Act were brought on the statute book with effect from 01.11.2020. However, the same were made effective and applicable with effect from 29.03.2022 vide notification no. when the CBDT notified the new scheme for assessment of income escaping assessment scheme, 2022. In our considered view the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find force from the decision of Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd., Paschim Medinipur VS. I.T.O., in ITA no. 1328/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18, the order dated 15.10.2024, wherein a similar issue has been decided in favor of the assessee. For the sake of ready reference, the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 09.02.2022 and show cause notice dated 17.03.2022, are extracted below:-

2.6. The grounds no.3 & 4 are allowed.

3.1. The Id. counsel submitted that the assessment year involved is A.Υ 2013-14 where the original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. He therefore has submitted that in terms of 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act is attracted in this case which provides that where original assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act, no action shall be taken u/s 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of income. The Id. counsel submitted that the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts relating to the transactions carried out by the assessee and there is no adverse finding mentioned in the said reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to fully disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment. The ld. AR submitted that even on this count the re-opening is bad and invalid. The Id AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC).

3.2. The Id. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.4. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, we find that the assessee has raised loan from M/s Kirlampudi commerce Pvt. Ltd. and partly repaid the same during the year and during the subsequent financial year, the assessee fully repaid the loan. Therefore, once the assessee has established that the repayment of loans has been made then the same cannot be added u/s.68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to meet the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. 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. Similarly, the of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of

"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 byappellate 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 the assessee and the loan parties and that they could not be doubted for their genuineness.

3.6. Ground No.6 is allowed.

A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No. 1306/KOL/2026 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed grounds no.6,7,8 and 9 in which the common issue raised is against the confirmation of addition of

5.1. The facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.07.2022. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income on 10.08.2022. Thereafter, the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were received along with questionnaire which were complied with by the assessee by furnishing the reply/ evidences vide letter submitted dated 18.01.2023. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued and complied with by the loan creditors. Thereafter, also the case was attended by the assessee from time to time as noted in the assessment order. The case of the assessee was reopened after the ld. AO received information from investigation wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of ₹91,50,028/- received from M/s Greenview Tracom Pvt. ltd., which is in the nature of accommodation entry. It was also noted that information was forwarded that during the course of search of Aludecor Group certain incriminating documents, digital data were recovered from the key person Shri Banwarilal Agarwal, during the search action and his statement was also recorded in which he has admitted that he along with his close associates were engaged in providing accommodation entries. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has received unsecured loans from four parties, the details whereof is given at page no.5 para no.9 of the assessment order aggregating to ₹3,58,22,917/-. The assessee furnished before the ld. AO all the details comprising names, addresses, PAN

5.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the undisputed facts are that during the year the case of the assessee was reopened by the ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.07.2022, after the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing that the assessee has credit entry of ₹91,50,028/- being the money received from M/s Greenview Tracom Pvt. ltd., which is a accommodation entry. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed on the basis of evidences/ report furnished by the assessee that the assessee has received loans from four parties namely, M/s Greenview Tracom Pvt. ltd., of ₹1,56,55,985/-, M/s Gulzar Hire Purchase P Ltd. of ₹1,17,02,932/-, M/s Gleam Finance P. Ltd. of ₹42,58,630/-, M/s Sagun Commercials P. Ltd. of ₹42,05,370/-, aggregating to ₹3,58,21,917/-. We note that during the year the assessee has furnished before the ld. AO all the details and evidences, qua these loan creditors comprising names, address, PANs, copies of confirmations, copies of bank accounts etc. We also note that the ld. AO has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in the evidences filed by the assessee or further

"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

5.4. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.06.2026 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