DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA vs. ARTHUR TURNKEY PROJECTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1705/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 October 2026AY 2013-1414 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years, the Tribunal found that the assessment was originally framed under Section 143(3). As per the First Proviso to Section 147, reassessment beyond four years is permissible only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not contain any such finding of failure by the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment was held to be null and void, bad in law, and rightly quashed by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. ([2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC)). Concerning the additions under Section 69A, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions. The Tribunal noted that the amounts received as refunds or loans were duly recorded in the audited books of account and supported by necessary documentation like loan confirmations and repayment details. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated these factual aspects, and the additions were deleted as the transactions were recorded and supported by evidence.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The appeals were filed with a delay of 49 and 29 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The primary issue in ITA No. 1846/Kol/2025 (AY 2012-13) concerned the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessee, Arthur Turnkey Projects Limited, had its original assessment completed under Section 143(3). The reassessment was based on information from the Investigation Wing, which the Revenue contended was not disclosed during the original assessment. The CIT(A) had held the reassessment proceedings invalid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, are valid, considering the First Proviso to Section 147, when the assessment was originally framed under Section 143(3) and the reasons recorded do not explicitly state a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The Revenue argued that materials from the Investigation Wing were not disclosed during original assessment. The assessee contended that there was no lapse in disclosure and the reassessment was invalid. 2. Whether the deletion of additions made under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money/unsecured loans is justified. The Revenue disputed the deletion of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- received as refund from Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 45,00,000/- received from Ilex Pvt. Ltd. The assessee argued that these transactions were duly recorded in audited books of account and supported by loan confirmations and repayment details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA, Shri Rabin, Shri Avinash Singh, ACA(s)
For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, CIT-DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 &1723/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: (2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 ) DCIT, Arthur Turnkey Projects Limited, Circle – 1(1), Vs. 1/1A, 4H-Electronic Centre, Biplabi Kolkata Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chowk, Kolkata – 700069, West Bengal [PAN: AAFCM4891H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA, Shri Rabin Maheshwari & Shri Avinash Singh, ACA(s) Respondent by: Shri Raman Garg, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.10.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals preferred by the revenue are against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”],dated24.04.2025, 28.04.2025 for the Assessment Years(AY) 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.

2.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay in filing of the appeal by 49 days in ITA Nos.1846 & 1847/Kol/2025 and 29 days in ITA Nos.1705 & 1723/Kol/2025 by the Revenue, for which, condonation petitions have been filed. After hearing both parties and perusing the contents of the condonation

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. application filed by the Revenue, we are of the view that the reasons are bonafide and genuine. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1846/Kol/2025 (AY 2012-13): 3. First of all, we would like to take up ground No.5 raised by the revenue, which is against the order of ld. CIT(A) holding the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) and the consequent order passed u/s 143(3)/147/263 of the Act to be invalid in terms of the 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act without considering that the materials available with the Investigation Wing which were not disclosed during the course of original assessment proceedings. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.24,57,060/- under normal provisions and Rs.5,26,551/- u/s 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 with an income of Rs.74,57,060/- under normal provisions and Rs.5,26,551/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, again order u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act was passed assessing the income at Rs.74,79,295/- and MAT loss of Rs.2,32,681/-. Thereafter, case of was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The assessee in compliance filed return of income on 03.05.2019 declaring income of Rs.24,57,060/- and MAT income of Rs.5,26,551/-. Thereafter, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires were issued, which were duly complied with by the assessee by furnishing all the details and evidences as called for. Thereafter, the AO issued

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to various parties from whom the assessee was alleged to have received funds during the year. The details of seven parties are given page 2 of the assessment order. The notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued on 14.11.2019 to all the parties however, only two parties replied and remaining five parties did not reply. Finally, the AO made four additions in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147/263/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2019 namely, (i) of Rs.3,83,54,484/- received from Amit Iron Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that there was no compliance of notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act and the amount was treated as unexplained cash credit, (ii) of Rs.50,00,000/- received from Panorama Commercial Pvt. Ltd., (iii) of Rs.5,00,00,000/- received from Digvijay Tracon Pvt. Ltd and (iv) of Rs.50,00,000/- in MSP Sponge Iron Ltd., which was received against the sale made to the said company of sponge irons. The AO added the said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for the reason that there was no real transaction between the assessee and the said company and hence, the transaction was treated as unexplained cash credit. 5. In the appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by treating the re-assessment proceedings as invalid in terms of 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act by holding that in this case the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed by the AO and re-opening beyond the four years could only be made if the escaped income was attributable to the assessee not being truly and materially disclosing all facts either in the return of income or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) noted that there was no lapse on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact fully and truly during the assessment proceedings. Also there was no whisper of failure on the part of the assessee in the reasons recorded by the Assessing

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. Officer. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings were held to be invalid by ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Undisputedly, the re-opening of assessment was beyond four years from end of the relevant assessment year. It is also undisputed that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 26.3.2015, therefore, re-opening beyond the four years from the end of relevant year in accordance with 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act can be made only which provides that re-opening can be made only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee, to disclose truly and fully all material facts qua the said escaped income. We have also perused the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act and find that there was no such failure recorded in the reasons by the AO. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the re-opening of assessment is nullity and bad in law and was rightly quashed by the ld. CIT(A). The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench in case of M/s Anvil Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd) v DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata ITA No.2684/Kol/2025 order dated 27.02.2026 by following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC). The coordinate bench has been held as under:

“6. We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30.03.2016. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 12.03.2020. We further find that notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s 147 was issued on 29.09.2020 after recording the reasons to believe, copy of which is available at page no.47 to 50 of the Paper Book of the assessee, wherein in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or finding as to failure of the assessee to disclose any information truly and

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. materially in the return of income filed or during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the reopening of assessment does not meet the parameters as provided under First proviso to Section 147 of the Act. It is important to mention here that where the assessee had duly disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration and the reopening of the assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation being hit by the 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act, therefore, held the reopening as bad in law. We also find that there is no mention in the said reasons recorded that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to fully disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment. We place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held that no re-opening can be made u/s 147 of the Act after elapse of four years from the end of relevant assessment year where an assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act if the AO has not recorded in the reasons to believe that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any information fully and truly disclosing all material facts necessary for assessment. Considering the above discussion and keeping in view the judicial precedent, we hold the reopening of assessment is bad in law and the same is hereby quashed, consequently all other proceedings are set a side.” 7. In view of the above facts and ratio laid in the above decision, we are inclined to uphold appellate order on this issue by dismissing Ground No.5 of the revenue.

8.

The issue in Ground No.1 is against the deletion of Rs.3,84,54,484/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act by treating the money received as unexplained cash credit.

9.

The facts of the case in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings, called upon the assessee to furnish the details of money received from seven parties, which are given on page 2 of the assessment order, which were accordingly furnished by the assessee before the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, however, only two parties responded out of seven parties and consequently, the AO added the amount as an unexplained cash credit in respect of three parties. In other words, the AO

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. added Rs.3,84,54,484/- received from M/s Amit Iron Pvt. Ltd., Rs.50,00,000/- in respect of Panorama Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Rs.50,00,000/- in respect of Digvijay Tracon Pvt. Ltd. by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not proved the transactions with the said parties.

10.

In the appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the money stated to be received by the assessee is not received from the parties but represented the transaction of payment and not received. The ld. CIT(A) observed that there was no credit in the book of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has made payments to the impugned parties. The assessee has made payments to the said parties on account of purchases made by the assessee during the normal course of business and the payments were made through banking channel. The ld CIT(A) , therefore, held that the very basis on which the addition was made by the AO was wrong and deleted the addition.

11.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the AO has totally misunderstood the facts of the case as payments made by the assessee in respect of purchase advances through banking channels during the financial year whereas the AO has recorded a wrong finding that the assessee has received payments and treated the same as unexplained cash credit which is exactly opposite the facts of the case on records. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs.3,84,54,484/-. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) by dismissing Ground No.1 of the revenue.

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. 12. The issue raised in Ground No.2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.50,00,000/- as made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act by treating the amount received from M/s Digvijay Tracon Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit.

13.

The facts of the case in brief are that the AO noted that there was no compliance in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit despite assessee filing all the evidences before the AO qua the amount received by the assessee.

14.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the said amount represented the money received from the said party against the advances given earlier years and therefore, there was no credit in the books of account which could be treated as unexplained cash credit. The ld. CIT(A) referred to the copy of ledger accounts and bank statements and noted that M/s Digvijay Tracon Pvt. Ltd. has issued optionally convertible debentures to the assessee of Rs.4,91,00,000/- against the advance of Rs.5,00,00,000/- paid by the assessee out of which Rs.9,00,000/- was repaid during the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17. Therefore, the amount given by the assessee was converted into debenture of M/s Digvijay Tracon Pvt. Ltd. The ld. CIT(A), thus, deleted the addition made by the AO.

15.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We note that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) after taking into account all the factual aspects and evidences available on record. We have also examined the evidences placed before us and are in agreement with the conclusion of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and upholding the same by dismissing the ground No.2 of the revenue appeal.

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. 16. The issue raised in Ground No.3 is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- as made by the AO by treating the money received from M/s MSP Sponge Iron Ltd. as unexplained cash credit.

17.

The facts of the case in brief are that the AO, during the assessment proceedings, noted that the said company M/s MSP Sponge Iron Ltd. has paid Rs.50,00,000/- on 22.03.2012 to the assessee company and the amount was deposited to the current account in Axis Bank. The AO treated the same as cash credit and added to the income of the assessee despite the assessing furnishing all the details and evidences before the AO.

18.

In the appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the M/s MSP Sponge Iron Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee and this is a transaction between the above company and the assessee n the normal course of business. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the payment was against regular sales transactions in the normal course of business.

19.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We note that the assessee has furnished all the evidences including the relevant bank statements before the AO. We find that the assessee has received the payment from sister concern, against the sales to the said entity which was duly shown in the books of account of the sister concern as well as the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order ld. CIT(A) and accordingly uphold the same on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the revenue.

20.

The issue raised in Ground No.4 does not require any adjudication as the issue has already been decided by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings in the order passed u/s 250 of the Act on 29.03.2017 in ITA

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. No.232/CIT(A)-9/Wd-1(4)/2016-17/Kol as the assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the ground no. 4 is dismissed.

ITA No.1847/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13):

21.

The only issue raised by the revenue is against the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) in respect of share application of money received from M/s Panorama Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

22.

The facts of the case in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee received Rs.50,00,000/- by way of share application money. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to file the details and evidences , which were duly furnished by the assessee qua the subscriber. The AO also issued summons u/s 131 to the Directors of the assessee-company and directed them to furnish all details/books of accounts for examination. Similarly, summons was issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to the Directors of the share applicant company. However, when there was no compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, the AO added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit.

23.

In the appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition observed that the assessee furnished before the AO name, address, audited financial, bank statements etc. qua the sale subscriber. However, the AO has not considered all the facts available and evidences furnished by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee received Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the said company in A.Y. 2011-12 for 250000 equity shares of face value of ₹ 10/- at a premium of ₹ 70/- each and further Rs.50,00,000/- in the impugned A.Y.

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. 2012-13. The ld. CIT(A) noted that AO has not appreciated the facts that the said company has invested in the assessee company in the earlier year and further investment of Rs.50,00,000/- during the year. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) ,after taking into the account the details/evidences, deleted the addition by noting that investment by the said subscriber has already been accepted in A.Y. 2011-12 and the same cannot be treated as non-genuine during the year. 24. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that during the year, the assessee has raised by way of share application money from M/s Panorama Commercial Pvt. Ltd. a sum of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- and the said company has been allotted equity shares. We also note that said company had subscribed and also invested Rs.50,00,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and was also allotted shares which have not been doubted by the Department. The assessee filed before the AO all details/evidences, such as, name, address, PAN, audited financial and bank statements etc., qua the subscribers and AO has not done any enquiry into those evidences. We note that the addition was made on the ground that summons issued u/s 131 of the Act were complied with. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the appellate order on this issue by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. ITA No.1705/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14): 25. The issue in Ground No.3 by the revenue is against the order of ld. CIT(A) holding the re-opening of assessment as invalid as the same is not in accordance with 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 26. The issue in this ground is identical to one as decided by us in Ground No.5 in ITA No.1846/Kol/2025 for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein we upheld the order

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. of ld. CIT(A) on the issue of quashing the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act being beyond the 4 years when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the information qua alleged escapement of income. Therefore, our findings/decision in the said Ground No.5 in ITA No.1846/Kol/2025 (supra) would apply, mutatis mutandis, to ground no 3 of this appeal in ITA No.1705/Kol/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14. Consequently, Ground No.3 is dismissed upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The ground no. 3 is dismissed. 27. The issue raised in Ground No.1 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- as made by the AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as the assessee has failed to prove the source of Rs.1,40,00,000/- received by assessee from M/s Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. 28. The facts of the case in brief are that the M/s Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. is a group company and engaged in the business of supplying design iron ore beneficiation plant and an order of Rs.9.3 Crore was placed on 10.11.2010 as per the terms of the contract. The assessee was required to pay 90% of the amount in advance and balance 10% at the time of delivery. The advances were paid during financial year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. In November, 2012 Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. informed the assessee that due to the significant delay between the placement of the order and the payment of the advance, it was no longer able to fulfill the order due to rising raw material costs and financial losses incurred by Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.. Consequently, Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. cancelled the purchase order and assured the assessee that the advance payment would be refunded within six to eight months, without interest. The assessee received Rs.1.40 Crore as refund from said company, which was duly disclosed in the books of account

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. and the same was not disputed by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 25.03.2016. However, in the impugned re- opening proceedings, the AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 29. In the appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the money was truly recorded in the books of account, which is against the advance received/ refunded by Sikhar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) recorded a finding that once, the money received was recorded in the books of accounts , the same cannot be added u/s 69A of the Act Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 30. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that there was no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) has passed an order after taking into factual aspects and also corresponding entry in the books of account which were audited also. Therefore, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the Ground No.5. 31. So far as the Ground No.2 is against the deletion of Rs.45,00,000/- made as unsecured loan u/s 69A of the Act. 32. The facts of the case in brief are that assessee received Rs.45,00,000/- from M/s Ilex Pvt. Ltd., which is a group company, in the normal course of business and paid interest thereon. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, furnished all the details along with loan confirmations. The assessee also furnished the details of loan re-paid during the year itself. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), which appreciated the facts in correct perspective and deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act is legal as the section is not

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. applicable to the transaction recorded. Moreover, where the assessee has furnished all the evidences qua the loan creditors before the AO and he has not pin pointed any defect in the said evidences and if the loan is repaid , then no addition can be made as unexplained cash credit. Therefore, Ground No.2 is dismissed by upholding the order of ld. CIT(A).

33.

The issue raised in Ground No.3 is identical to Ground No.5 in ITA No. 1846/Kol/2025 for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein we have upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) where the ld. CIT(A) held that re-opening as invalid as the same is not in accordance with the 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, our decision on the above Ground No.5 in above appeal would apply, mutatis mutandis, to ground no. 3 as well. Consequently Ground No.3 is dismissed by upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA No.1723/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15):

34.

The issue raised in Ground No.1 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.6,50,00,000/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act when the assessee failed to prove the source of money received from Sikhar Commotrade Pvt Ltd. 35. The facts and issue in ground no. 1 is identical to one as decided by us in ground no. 1 in ITA No.1705/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) where we have upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no.1. Therefore, our decision on ground no.1 in ITA No.1705/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) would apply, mutatis mutandis, to this ground as well. Consequently ground no. 1 is dismissed. 36. The issue raised in ground no. 2 is identical to one as decided by us in ground No.5 in ITA No.1846/Kol/2025 for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein we upheld

ITA Nos.1846, 1847, 1705 & 1723/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13, 2013-14& 2014-15 DCIT vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd. the order of ld. CIT(A) on the issue of quashing the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act being beyond the 4 years when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the information qua alleged escapement of income. Therefore, our findings/decision in the said Ground No.5 in ITA No.1846/Kol/2025 (supra) would apply, mutatis mutandis, to ground no 2 of this appeal. Consequently, Ground No. 2 is dismissed by upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The ground no. 2 is dismissed.

37.

The other grounds are general ground and in support of ground no.1 and do not require separate adjudication.

38.

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

The order is pronounced on 12/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 12/10/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयक�] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →