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

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 ITA No 1560/KOL/2026 2. These grounds no. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are against the confirmation of disallowance of expenditures of ₹ 1,06,46,352/-by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on adhoc basis as per under mentioned details:

Sl Nature of Expenditure Total Expenses Amount disallowed in No debited to Profit & the assessment order Loss account 1 Foreign Traveling 14,44,152 10,98,204 2 Guest House expenditure 38,03,118 37,43,118 3 Gardening expenditure 57,791 57,791

4 Membership Expenses 11,22,670 2,09,839 5 Interest Expenses 80,50,865 55,37,400 Total 1,06,46,352

Page 2 of 15

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

Sl No AY Turnover Foreign Traveling Guest House Gardening Membership Interest on unsecured (Rs. In loan Crore) Total Addition Total Addition Total Addition Total Addition Total Addition Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses 1 2011-12 - 5,01,189 - 8,06,795 - - - 1,12,190 - -

2 2012-13 - 5,88,875 - 16,32,077 - 44,399 - 1,91,606 - - - 3 2013-14 29.17 - - 20,64,266 - 22,290 - 1,93,205 - - 7,17,468 4 2014-15 187.63 - - 23,23,761 - 45,181 - - - 8,02,332 80,76,985 5 2015-16 174.90 1,38,247 - 9,43,177 - 5,936 - 56,180 - 8,55,900 79,18,025 6 2016-17 322.06 - - 10,98,548 - 32,495 - 83,130 - - 75,70,701 7 2017-18 323.64 - - 18,26,165 - 64,679 - 3,79,607 - - 77,36,970 8 2018-19 340.55 - - 26,05,009 - 84,798 - 5,01,744 - - 78,06,755 9 2019-20 421.49 14,44,152 10,98,204 38,03,118 37,43,118 57,791 57,791 11,22,670 2,09,839 55,37,400 80,50,865 10 2020-21 464.31 21,47,001 21,47,001 53,67,588 47,73,689 2,88,569 2,88,569 18,36,671 - - 97,29,201 11 2021-22 483.13 - - 78,15,576 - 6,85,439 - 42,05,023 32,46,188 - 1,44,70,496 12 2022-23 578.52 - - 83,89,677 - 15,07,661 15,07,661 23,28,768 5,08,255 1,20,14,749 4. The appeals for assessment years from AY 2011-12 to AY 2018-19 are already before us vide IT(SS)A 54& 55/KOL/2026, ITA 1557 to 1559/KOL/2026, ITA 1564/KOL/2026& ITA 2162/KOL/2026in which no such disallowances have been made. We also note that expenditures were disallowed on adhoc basis in AY 2019-20 to 2022-23 by the Ld. AO without assigning any reason while the same were allowed in other years. Similarly the disallowance was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order.

Page 3 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 cannot be sustained. The reliance is placed on following decisions:

a) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 409 ITR 545 (Bombay)[28-06-2018] has held as under: “7. We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the Revenue Authorities have consistently over the years i.e. for the 10 years years prior to Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and for 4 subsequent years, accepted the principle that all expenses which has been incurred are attributable entirely to earning professional income. Therefore, the Revenue allowed the expenses to determine professional income without any amount being allocated to earn capital gain. In the subject assessment year, the Assessing Officer has deviated from these principles without setting out any reasons to deviate from an accepted principle. Moreover, the impugned order of the Tribunal also records that the Revenue was not able to point out any distinguishing features in the present facts, which would warrant a different view in the subject assessment year from that taken in the earlier and subsequent assessment years. So far as the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) is concerned, it is true that there are observations therein that restrict its applicability only to that decision and the Court has made it clear that the decision should not be taken as an authority for general applicability. 8. However, subsequently the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as under :— "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. The courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position. The reason why courts have held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not because of any principle of res judicata but because of the theory of precedent or the precedential value of the Page 4 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 earlier pronouncement. Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. This mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the earlier decision of where the earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are fetters only on a co-ordinate Bench which, failing the possibility of availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the matter to a Bench of superior strength or in some cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) 9. The principle accepted by the Revenue for 10 earlier years and 4 subsequent years to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is to be allocated to capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast pointed out to the Tribunal when it passed the impugned order. None of this has happened. In fact, all have proceeded on the basis that there is no change in the principle which has been consistently applied for the earlier assessment years and also for the subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with, as it is in accord with the Apex Court decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.'s case (supra).”

b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) has held as under: “13. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would

Page 5 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. On these reasoning’s in the absence of any material change 2. justifying the revenue to take a different view of the matter—and if there was no change it was in support of the assessee—we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the Commissioner in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals should be allowed and the question should be answered in the affirmative, namely, that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang was entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12.”

ITA No 1561/KOL/2026(AY 2020-21) 8. The ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance expenditures of ₹ 1,55,98,016/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on adhoc basis in the assessment order as per under mentioned details:

Sl No Nature of Expenditure Total Expenses Amount disallowed in debited to Profit & the assessment order Loss account 1 Foreign Traveling 21,47,001 21,47,001 2 Guest House expenditure 53,67,588 47,73,689 3 Gardening expenditure 2,88,569 2,88,569 4 Festival Expenses 83,88,757 83,88,757 Total 1,55,98,016

Page 6 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 9. The issue raised in ground no. 1 is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. IT (SS)A No. ITA No 1560/KOL/2026 A.Y. 2019-20 wherein we have allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, our decision in the above appeal would, mutatis mutandis, apply to ground no. 1 of this appeal as well. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹.1,55,98,016/.The ground no. 1 is allowed.

ITA No 1562/KOL/2026(AY 2021-22) 11. The ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are against the confirmation of disallowance expenditures of ₹ 42,03,355/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on adhoc basis in the assessment order as per under mentioned details:

Sl No Nature of Expenditure Total Expenses Amount disallowed in debited to Profit & the assessment order Loss account 1 Membership Fees 42,05,023 32,46,188 2 Miscellaneous Expenditure 8,18,40,000 9,57,167 Total 42,03,355 12. The issue raised in ground no. 1 & 2 is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. IT (SS) A No. ITA No 1560/KOL/2026 A.Y. 2019-20 wherein we have allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, our decision in the above appeal would, mutatis mutandis, apply to ground no. 1& 2 of this appeal as well. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹.42,03,355/-.The ground no. 1& 2 are allowed. Page 7 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 13. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No 1563/KOL/2026(AY 2022-23) 14. The ground nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are against the confirmation of disallowance expenditures of ₹ 51,48,801/- by ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on adhoc basis in the assessment order as per under mentioned details:

Sl Nature of Expenditure Total Expenses Amount disallowed in No debited to Profit & the assessment order Loss account 1 Garden Expenses 15,07,661 15,07,661 2 Membership Expenses 23,28,768 5,08,255 3 Other Selling & Distribution 1,56,64,424 31,32,885 Expenses Total 51,48,801 15. The issue raised in ground no. 1 to 3 is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. IT(SS)A No. ITA No 1560/KOL/2026 A.Y. 2019-20 wherein we have allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore our decision in the above appeal would, mutatis mutandis, apply to ground no. 1 to 3 of this appeal as well. Consequently we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹.42,03,355/-.The ground no. 1 to 3 are allowed.

ITA No. 2418/KOL/2026(AY 2013-14) 17. The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act by

Page 8 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 ignoring the fact that the re-opening in not in accordance with 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act.

Page 9 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 20. In the appellate proceedings , the re-opening was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

Page 10 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 “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 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 aside.” 22. In view of the above facts we are inclined to quash the notice issued u/a 148 of the Act as well as consequent assessment framed by the Assessing. The ground no, 1 is allowed.

Page 11 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 24. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the case was reopened by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 14.01.2021 after recording reasons to believe. Now, the issue before us whether the additions made by the AO were without jurisdiction for the reason that no addition was made in respect of the item of income referred to in the reasons recorded which according to the AO has escaped assessment. We have considered the facts carefully as placed before us and find that in this case the AO has mentioned in the reasons recorded that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry of ₹ 10,25,00,000/-which has resulted into the escapement of income whereas no addition was made in respect of that accommodation entry. However, the AO added Rs.35,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured . Therefore, in our opinion, no other addition could be made in respect of unsecured loan when no addition was made for the escaped income as noted in the reasons recorded. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. in GA No. 1736 of 2014 dated 15.11.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 and also Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) that where the income the escapement of which was the foundation for recording of reasons to believe, is not assessed or reassessed in the order u/s. 147, Page 12 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 then it is not mere opened to the AO to independently assess any other income, which comes to his notice subsequently during the course of re-assessment proceedings. The similar ratio has been laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Ganesh Steel & Alloys in ITA No. 929/KOL/2023 dated 11.06.2024 after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the reopening proceeding as well as the consequent order framed by the AO. the ground no. 2 is allowed.

ITA No 2440/KOL/2026(AY 2013-14) 27. The ground no 2 is against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as made by the AO on account of unsecured loan received during the year u/s 68 of the Act.

Page 13 of 15

ITA Nos.1560 to 1563, 2418, 2440/KOL/2026 Amrit Cement Limited; A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23, 2013-14 unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed addition of addition.

Order pronounced on 13.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 13.10.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Page 14 of 15

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

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Page 15 of 15