M/S AMRIT CEMENT LIMITED ,OPPOSITE HORSE SHOE BUILDING, UMLAPER VILLAGE, ELA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR 4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA,

ITA 1560/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 October 2026AY 2019-2015 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20 is unfair and cannot be sustained, especially on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that these expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the AO had made ad-hoc disallowances without assigning reasons. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to earlier pronouncements unless there's a new ground or material change in facts. Regarding the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment. It held that the AO could not make an addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 when the reasons recorded for reopening were based on an alleged accommodation entry of ₹10,25,00,000/- which was not added. The Tribunal relied on decisions like ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. and M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. The addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan for AY 2013-14 was also set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition, as a similar issue was allowed in a previous appeal. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amrit Cement Limited, filed appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2019-20 to 2022-23 and 2013-14. The appeals challenged the confirmation of disallowances of various expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20, including foreign travel, guest house, gardening, membership, and interest expenses. The assessee contended that these expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in prior and subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal noted that similar disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis by the Assessing Officer (AO) without assigning reasons, despite these expenses being allowed in other years. The judgment also addresses issues related to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and additions made under Section 68 for AY 2013-14.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20, including foreign travel, guest house, gardening, membership, and interest expenses, is sustainable, considering they were allowed in previous and subsequent assessment years. (Question of law and fact, relating to allowability of expenses). Assessee's contention: The disallowances are unfair and unsustainable, particularly on the principle of consistency, as these expenditures have been consistently allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and the consequent assessment for AY 2013-14 are valid, specifically concerning an addition of ₹35,00,000/- made under Section 68, when the reasons recorded for reopening pertained to an alleged accommodation entry of ₹10,25,00,000/- which was not added. (Question of law, relating to the scope of reassessment proceedings). Assessee's contention: The reopening is bad in law as the addition made under Section 68 for unsecured loans was unrelated to the escaped income forming the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. Reliance is placed on ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. and M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received during the year under Section 68 for AY 2013-14 is sustainable. (Question of fact and law, relating to unexplained cash credit).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan
For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 07.04.2026, 08.04.2026, 02.07.2026, 06.07.2026 for the AYs: 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 respectively.

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 For A.Y. 2019-20

2.

These grounds no. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are against the confirmation of disallowance of expenditures of ₹ 1,06,46,352/

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →