DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LASER POWER & INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 2926/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 October 2026AY 2019-2053 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee, Laser Power & Infra Private Limited, are against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing cables and conductors and executing EPC contracts for rural electrification. A search under section 132(1) and survey under section 133A were conducted on March 15, 2022. Notices under section 148 were issued for six years, and returns were filed declaring the same income. Assessments were framed under section 147 read with section 143(3). The primary dispute in appeal ITA No. 2790/Kol/2025 (AY 2017-18) concerns the deletion of an addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 on account of unsecured loans, treated as unexplained cash credit. For AY 2019-20, the appeal challenges the deletion of a penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- levied under section 271D.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal (Grounds 1 and 9 for AY 2017-18) for not giving proper opportunity to the AO during remand proceedings and accepting unverified submissions without enquiry, contrary to Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Revenue's contention: Relief was granted without calling for a remand report and upon unverified submissions without specific enquiry. - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans, treating them as unexplained cash credit. - Assessee's contention: The assessee furnished MCA master data, ledger accounts, audited financial statements, loan confirmations, and bank statements for all loan creditors. The AO doubted genuineness solely based on an excel file and statements without proving creditworthiness. - Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, routing its own money through shell companies. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- levied by the AO under Section 271D of the Act for AY 2019-20. - Assessee's contention: The penalty order was based on an alleged search on Kasera Group, but no specific transaction contravening Section 269SS was stated, nor was there any reference to circumstantial evidence seized from the assessee. No statement was recorded, no cross-examination was afforded, and the assessee's name did not feature in alleged statements from third parties. The alleged seized receipts aggregated ₹2,00,000/-, while the penalty was based on four alleged instances of ₹1,00,00,000/- each without explanation. The initiating notice was defective. Reliance was placed on Girdhar Gopal Dalmia vs. Union of India (2023) 150 taxmann.com 54 (Calcutta). - Revenue's contention: Not recorded, beyond the initial levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 133A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 68,Section 271D,Section 274,Section 269SS,Section 69D,Section 132(4),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury
For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, DR
Hearing: 17.08.2026Pronounced: 01.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of ITA Nos. 2790 to 2095& 2

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →