ALUDECOR LAMINATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. Nos. 1520 to 1527/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2021-22)

Aludecor Lamination Private Limited, 1, R N Mukherjee Road, 5th Floor, Room No. 52, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AAECA8253G] …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700107 ……..…...…………….... Respondent I.T.A. Nos. 2738 to 2740/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-15 & 2020-21)

I.T.A. Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-2016 & 2016-17 & 2017-18)

I.T.A. Nos. 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019 & 2019-20)

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 1(1), Kolkata, R. No. 305, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata - 700107 …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Aludecor Lamination Private Limited, 1, R N Mukherjee Road, 5th Floor, Room No. 52, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AAECA8253G] ……..…...…………….... Respondent

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Department represented by : Raman Garg, CIT, DR

Date of concluding the hearing : 12.08.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 30.10.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM

The present appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue arise from orders dated 29.05.2025, 30.05.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata-20 [hereafter referred to “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2021-22.

AY: 2013-14 ITA NO. 2738/KOL/2025 2. We now take up the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2013- 14 in ITA No. 2738/KOL/2025. 3. Ground No. 1 to 4 of the Revenue’s appeal challenges the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14 were barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) read with the applicable provisions of section 153A of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹2,55,01,952/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of ₹2,81,80,653/- under section 115JB of the Act. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 17.03.2016 determining the total income at ₹2,59,54,790/-.

Page 2 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 3.2. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 21.06.2022 and on subsequent dates at the residential and business premises of the Aludecor Group at Kolkata, Delhi and other places. The search was thus conducted during the financial year 2022-23 relevant to Assessment Year 2023- 24. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2023, which was served on 31.03.2023. In response thereto, the assessee filed its return of income on 16.08.2023 declaring the same income as declared in the original return. Thereafter, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and the reassessment proceedings were completed on 30.03.2024 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. 3.3. In the reassessment, the Assessing Officer treated the unsecured loans received from Gleam Finance Pvt. Ltd., Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and Sagun Commercial Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entries and made an addition of ₹1,92,82,979/- under section 68 of the Act on account of individual peak credit. He further disallowed interest of ₹32,47,317/- relating to the said loans and made an addition of ₹5,10,000/- under section 69C towards alleged commission paid for obtaining such accommodation entries. 3.4. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the preliminary issue of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the search was conducted on 21.06.2022, i.e. during the financial year 2022-23 relevant to Assessment Year 2023-24, and examined the limitation applicable to the assessment year under consideration with reference to the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act and the provisions of section 153A as they stood prior to the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in R.B. Jewellers Private Page 3 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Limited Vs. Union of India and Anr., WPO 438 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2023, and other decisions referred to in the appellate order. Having held the reassessment proceedings to be barred by limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the remaining grounds on merits. 3.5. The ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding the reassessment proceedings to be barred by limitation. It was submitted that the search and seizure operation was conducted on 21.06.2022 and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto could not be treated as time barred merely by considering the assessment year in isolation. It was further submitted that, in view of the provisions of section 153A of the Act, the proceedings were within the permissible period. 3.6. The ld. DR further submitted that the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) was required to be considered in the context of the provisions of section 153A as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. It was accordingly contended that the notice issued under section 148 was valid and that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deserved to be reversed. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3.7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The factum of search on 21.06.2022 is undisputed. The issue before us is whether, having regard to the date of search and the statutory provisions governing limitation, the reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2013-14 could validly be initiated pursuant to the notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2023. 3.8. The first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act provides that, in respect of a relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, a notice under section 148 shall not be issued where a notice under section 148, section 153A or section 153C could not Page 4 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. have been issued at the relevant time on account of the limitation prescribed under the provisions of the Act as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. Thus, for determining the validity of the notice issued in the present case, the limitation applicable under the earlier statutory framework has to be considered. 3.9. In the present case, the search was conducted on 21.06.2022, during the financial year 2022-23, relevant to Assessment Year 2023-24. The period relevant for the present issue may be seen from the following year-wise computation:

Sl. No. Assessment Year Financial Year End of Assessment Year Position with reference to search 1 2023-24 2022-23 31.03.2024 Search year 2 2022-23 2021-22 31.03.2023 2nd year 3 2021-22 2020-21 31.03.2022 3rd year 4 2020-21 2019-20 31.03.2021 4th year 5 2019-20 2018-19 31.03.2020 5th year 6 2018-19 2017-18 31.03.2019 6th year 7 2017-18 2016-17 31.03.2018 7th year 8 2016-17 2015-16 31.03.2017 8th year 9 2015-16 2014-15 31.03.2015 9th year 10 2014-15 2013-14 31.03.2014 10th year 11 2013-14 2012-13 31.03.2013 Outside the 10-year period 3.10. The search date of 21.06.2022 falls in financial year 2022-23 and consequently the corresponding search assessment year is Assessment Year 2023-24. On the computation adopted under the applicable provisions, the ten-year period thus extends up to Assessment Year 2014-15, whereas the year under consideration, Assessment Year 2013-14, falls outside the said period. The statutory provision itself refers to the relevant assessment year by reference to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted.

Page 5 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 3.11. The above computation is material because the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) does not confer an independent or unlimited power to reopen an assessment which had already fallen outside the period permissible under the earlier statutory framework. The proviso requires the limitation applicable under the provisions of section 149, section 153A or section 153C, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, to be considered. In the present case, when the search year and the assessment year under consideration are placed against each other, Assessment Year 2013-14 falls beyond the permissible ten-year period. 3.12. The position is also supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of R.B. Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Anr., WPO 438 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2023, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has considered the limitation applicable to proceedings arising from a search and followed the decision in A.R. Safiullah Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy. 3.13. We are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue that the mere fact that the search was conducted on 21.06.2022 would enable the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment year which falls outside the statutory period. The date of search is relevant for identifying the assessment year from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned; it does not, by itself, extend the period prescribed by law. 3.14. Once the above computation is applied, Assessment Year 2013-14 is clearly outside the ten-year period. The notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2023 was therefore issued for an assessment year which was beyond the period permissible under the applicable statutory framework. We accordingly find no infirmity in the finding of the Ld.

Page 6 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A) that the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013- 14 were barred by limitation. 3.15. Consequently, ground no. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the Revenue are interconnected with ground no. 1 and relate to the same issue of limitation. Ground no. 2 concerns the effect of the search conducted on 21.06.2022 and the applicability of the provisions of section 153A, while grounds nos. 3 and 4 concern the applicability of the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) and the provisions governing reassessment in the facts of the present case. 4.1. In view of our finding while adjudicating ground no. 1 that the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14 were initiated beyond the permissible period, the contentions raised in these grounds do not call for separate consideration. Once the reassessment proceedings themselves are held to be barred by limitation, the other grounds challenging the validity of the same reassessment proceedings become academic in nature. 4.2. Accordingly, ground nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the Revenue are dismissed. 5. Ground no. 5 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2738/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed. AY: 2014-15 ITA No. 1520/KOL/2025 & 2739/KOL/2025 7. We now take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2014- 15 in ITA No. 1520/KOL/2025. 8. Since the original grounds of appeal annexed to a form no. 36 are lengthy and argumentative, the appellant has submitted revised grounds of appeal which are adjudicated in the following paras. Page 7 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 9. Ground No. 1(a) and 1(b) are against the invalid initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitations which are not pressed and dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are directed against the addition of Rs. 21,37,677/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit in respect of loans received from M/s Gleam Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sagun Commercials Pvt. Ltd. 10.1. The facts in brief are that during the course of reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer examined the unsecured loans received by the assessee from M/s Gleam Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sagun Commercials Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Gleam”, “ Gulzar and “Sagun”). The assessee furnished documentary evidence in support of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders and the transactions, including company master data, PAN, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, confirmations, bank statements, ledger accounts and repayment details. The assessee also furnished evidence regarding payment of interest after deduction of tax at source and repayment of the loans with interest through banking channels much before the search. 10.2. The Ld. AO, however, treated the aforesaid loans as accommodation entries allegedly obtained through Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal. The Ld. AO principally relied upon the statements of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal recorded under sections 132(4) and 131(1A), the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya, Managing Director of the assessee- company, recorded under section 132(4), certain WhatsApp images recovered from the mobile phone of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal and the financial particulars of the lender companies. The identity of the Page 8 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. lenders was accepted by the Ld. AO, but their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions were questioned. 10.3. The Ld. AO observed that the lender companies had common or changing directors and that certain directors had disclosed low or negligible income. The assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that the financial capacity of the lender companies had to be examined at the corporate level. The net worth of M/s Gleam Finance Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 64,40,42,873/-, that of M/s Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 83,78,56,629/- and that of M/s Sagun Commercials Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 68,19,95,283/-. The loans in question constituted only a fraction of the respective net worth of the lender companies. 10.4. The assessee had also placed on record that the lender companies were companies incorporated under the Companies Act and were having “Active Compliant” status on the MCA records. The lenders were regularly filing their returns of income and their transactions were supported by audited financial statements, confirmations and bank statements. The lender companies had also complied with notices issued under section 133(6), pursuant to which their identity and existence were accepted by the Ld. AO. The material placed before us further shows that the lender companies were registered NBFCs and were being assessed to income-tax. The lenders had also been assessed by the Department in different assessment years without any adverse finding that the corresponding loans or interest income were fictitious. 10.5. Another material circumstance relied upon by the assessee is that the bank statements of the lenders showed movement of the funds through normal banking channels and there was no immediate cash deposit preceding the payments made to the assessee. The assessee also furnished evidence of payment of interest after deduction of tax Page 9 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. at source and full repayment of the loans together with interest through banking channels much before the search. Thus, the assessee submitted that the entire transaction trail, namely receipt of loan, payment of interest and repayment of principal, stood duly recorded in the books and banking records of the concerned parties. 10.6. The Ld. CIT(A), however, upheld the substantive addition by relying principally upon the statements of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal and Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya and the WhatsApp images recovered from the mobile phone of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the subsequent retractions of the statements. At the same time, while considering the alternate contention of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the methodology of clubbing the transactions of the three lender companies and computed the combined peak at Rs. 21,56,759/- as against Rs. 21,37,677/- determined by the Ld. AO, resulting in an enhancement of Rs. 19,082/-. 10.7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section 68 by furnishing the corporate records, income-tax records, audited financial statements, confirmations, bank statements, ledger accounts and repayment details of the lenders. It was submitted that once such material was furnished, the burden shifted to the revenue to bring positive and transaction specific material establishing that the particular loans represent the assessee’s own undisclosed income. 10.8. The Ld. AR further submitted that Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal was not a director of any of the three lender companies and there was no material to show that he was authorised to speak on behalf of those companies. It was also submitted that no director of the concerned lender companies had confirmed that the loans granted to the assessee were accommodation entries. Despite a specific request, the Page 10 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal. His statement was subsequently retracted and the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya was also retracted. 10.9. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the two WhatsApp images relied upon by the Revenue. The images bear the heading “RB LOAN PENDING 31.03.2020” and one of them is headed “Upto march20 — LOAN”. The first image contains several entries relating to different parties and only one entry refers to “ALUDECOR”. The second image contains entries referring to “GLEAM” and “KRISH” against “ALUDECOR”, while the remaining entries concern other parties. It was thus submitted that the images contains nothingwhich by any stretch of imagination would suggest that the transaction therein are accommodation entries. 10.10. The Ld. AR further submitted that the creditworthiness of a corporate lender has to be examined with reference to the financial position and funds available with the company and not merely on the basis of the personal income returned by its directors. In the present case, the audited financial statements disclosed substantial net worth of the lender companies and the loans advanced to the assessee were only a small fraction thereof. It was therefore submitted that the low income or otherwise of individual directors could not, by itself, establish that the lender companies lacked the capacity to advance the loans. 10.11. The Ld. AR also submitted that the very loans had been examined and accepted in the assessee's pre-search assessment proceedings for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18. According to the assessee, there was no finding in those proceedings that the lender companies were shell entities or that the corresponding loans and interest income were fictitious. The Ld. AR also submitted that Page 11 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. the seized material included a legal/recovery notice issued by M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. in respect of recovery of its loan. It was submitted that this material, read with the presumption under section 292C, disproves the allegation that the loan transactions were merely fictitious accommodation entries. It was further submitted that the loans under consideration had in fact been fully repaid with interest through banking channels much before the search. 10.12. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the statements recorded during the search proceedings, coupled with the WhatsApp material found from the mobile phone of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal, established the modus operandi of accommodation entries. It was submitted that the assessee's Managing Director had also admitted obtaining accommodation entries and that the financial particulars and common directorship of the lender companies supported the conclusion of the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the addition sustained and further enhancement by Rs. 19,082/- by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified. 10.13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The issue before us is whether the material relied upon by the Revenue is sufficient to displace the substantial documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and establish, on a transaction- specific basis, that the particular loans received from the three lender companies represented the assessee's own undisclosed money.We find that the assessee had furnished corporate records, PAN, income- tax returns, audited financial statements, confirmations, bank statements, ledger accounts and repayment details of the three lender companies. The identity of the lenders was not disputed by Page 12 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. AO and was, in fact, accepted after compliance with notices issued under section 133(6). The lenders were companies having “Active Compliant” status and regular income-tax records. Their audited financial statements disclosed substantial net worth, which was several times the amount of the loans under consideration. The mere fact that certain directors may have disclosed low income cannot, by itself, establish that the corporate entities lacked the financial capacity to advance the loans.We further find significance in the fact that the transactions were routed through banking channels and that the bank statements furnished by the assessee did not show any immediate cash deposit preceding the payments made to the assessee. The assessee also furnished evidence of payment of interest after deduction of tax at source and repayment of the loans with interest through banking channels much before the search. The Revenue has not demonstrated any specific defect in these banking records or brought on record any independent material establishing that the amounts paid by the lenders were sourced from cash allegedly supplied by the assessee. 10.14. The statements of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal and Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya also require to be examined in the context of the specific addition made in the hands of the assessee. Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal was not a director of the three lender companies and there is no material on record showing that any director of those companies confirmed that the loans granted to the assessee were accommodation entries. The statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya also does not establish the precise amount of Rs. 21,37,677/- or Rs. 21,56,759/- as undisclosed money of the assessee. We are conscious that a statement recorded under section 132(4) is a relevant piece of evidence and that a subsequent retraction does not automatically

Page 13 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. render such statement irrelevant. However, where the statement is relied upon to sustain a quantified addition, the same has to be considered along with the surrounding material and the existence of corroborative evidence connecting the statement with the particular transaction. 10.15. In the present case, the subsequent retractions, the denial of cross-examination of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal despite specific request and, more importantly, the absence of independent transaction-specific material assume significance. The decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. (2023) 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta). is also relevant in this context, where the absence of cash trail and corroborative material was considered significant while examining an addition based upon a retracted statement. 10.16. We also find that the WhatsApp images do not establish the necessary transaction-specific nexus. The images contain references to various parties and, in relation to the assessee, contain references to “ALUDECOR” against certain entries. However, there is no narration therein showing that the assessee paid cash, no identification of the alleged recipient of such cash, no corresponding bank transaction and no material establishing that the cash was thereafter returned to the assessee through any of the three lender companies. The existence of a general record maintained by an alleged accommodation-entry operator cannot, without any indication of accommodation entry, establish that credits appearing in the books of an assessee represents as own undisclosed money. 10.17. We also find considerable force in the contention that the Revenue has not demonstrated the alleged cash trail. There is no transaction-wise material brought on record identifying the date and Page 14 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. amount of cash allegedly handed over by the assessee, the person who received such cash, the place of such payment, the corresponding cash entry, the particular bank credit generated against such cash and the precise linkage between such cash and the loan credited in the books of the assessee. The existence of banking-channel credits from the three lender companies cannot be converted into proof of an accommodation entry unless the alleged cash component is independently established. 10.18. We also take note of the fact that the corresponding loan transactions had been reflected in the books and audited financial statements of the lenders, the lenders had filed their income-tax returns and the Department had completed assessments of the lender companies under the same centralised charge in different assessment years. The assessee had also relied upon acceptance of the loans in its own pre-search assessments. These circumstances establish genuineness and they constitute relevant documentary and departmental material which the Revenue was required to dislodge by bringing positive evidence before treating the very transactions as accommodation entries. The assessee has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Sreeleathers Ltd., ITAT/18/2022, decided on 14.07.2022, and PCIT v. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P.) Ltd., ITAT/71/2024, decided on 26.04.2024, concerning the evidentiary significance of repayment and the complete transaction trail. 10.19. We further note that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Bihariji Constructions (India) Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata, ITA Nos. 1305 & 1306/KOL/2026, order dated 30.06.2026, while dealing with A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15, considered loans received from, inter alia, the very same lender entities, namely M/s Gleam Finance Page 15 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., M/s Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sagun Commercial Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished the requisite details and evidences relating to the loan creditors, including confirmations and bank accounts, that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any defect or deficiency in such evidence or conducted further enquiry, and that the loans had been repaid with interest after deduction of tax at source. On such facts, the Tribunal held that the addition under section 68 could not be sustained and directed deletion of the addition. The said decision is of considerable relevance in the present case since three of the lender entities involved therein are the very same entities involved in the present assessment year. 10.20. We are conscious of the fact in the present case certain additional material in the form of the statements of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal and Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya and the WhatsApp images are available on record. However, the question remains whether such additional material establishes a specific nexus between the loans received by the assessee and as alleged undisclosed money. As discussed hereinabove, Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal was not a director of the lender companies, his statement was not subjected to cross- examination despite specific request, the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya does not establish the precise amount of the impugned addition and the WhatsApp images do not demonstrate the actual payment of cash by the assessee or the corresponding cash trail. Thus, the ratio of the aforesaid decision regarding examination of the particular transaction on the basis of positive and corroborative material assumes significance in the present case. 10.21. We also find that the computation of peak credit made by the Ld. CIT(A) does not cure the aforesaid evidentiary deficiency. Peak Page 16 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. credit is only a mathematical method of determining the maximum outstanding amount on the basis of a series of assumed cash movements. It cannot, by itself, establish that the assessee actually possessed or paid undisclosed cash in the first place. Unless the underlying cash transactions are established, a mathematical peak derived from the alleged accommodation-entry transactions cannot constitute independent evidence of undisclosed income. 10.22. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the peak credit from Rs. 21,37,677/- to Rs. 21,56,759/- on the basis of the combined working of the transactions with three lender companies. However, the enhancement is entirely derivative of the same underlying assumption that the loans represented the assessee's undisclosed cash. Once the underlying allegation of unexplained cash is not established by independent transaction-specific evidence, the mere mathematical re-computation of peak cannot sustain the addition. 10.23. On an overall consideration of the material on record, we find that the assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence establishing the identity of the lenders, their corporate existence, their financial capacity and the banking-channel movement of the funds. The lenders had substantial net worth, regular income-tax records and Active Compliant status. The transactions were recorded in the books and audited financial statements, interest was paid after deduction of tax at source and the loans were repaid through banking channels much before the search. Against this documentary evidence, the Revenue has not brought any independent and transaction-specific material establishing that the particular loans represented the assessee's own undisclosed money.

Page 17 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 10.24. The statements of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal and Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya, the WhatsApp images and the general allegation regarding accommodation entries, when considered in the light of the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, do not establish the specific addition made by the Ld. AO. 10.25. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the Revenue has failed to establish that the loans received from M/s Gleam Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sagun Commercials Pvt. Ltd. represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 21,56,759/- sustained/enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 68 of the Act is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 and Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. Ground No. 3 is directed against the disallowance of interest of Rs. 41,03,863/- on the alleged accommodation-entry loans. 11.1. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had debited interest expenditure of Rs. 41,03,863/- in respect of the loans received from the aforesaid lender companies to the tune of Rs 31,53,452/- and Rs 9,50,411/- in respect of loan from M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. Since the Ld. AO treated the underlying loans as accommodation entries, he consequently disallowed the corresponding interest expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the said disallowance. 11.2. While adjudicating Ground No. 2, we have deleted the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 in respect of the three companies in question. We note that the A.O. has further made disallowance of interest of Rs 9,50,411/- pertaining to loan from M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. However, on perusal the order passed by the A.O., we find that there is no addition made by the A.O. in respect of loan taken from the said company. We note that the A.O. had issued a detailed show- Page 18 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. cause notice dated 05.04.2024, where details of loans taken by the assessee were tabulated (reproduced at page 11 of the assessment order). In response, the assessee submitted that loan received from M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. during the year was NIL. Accordingly, the A.O. did not proceed to make any addition in respect thereof. The Ld. DR could not point out why the interest component relating to the said loan was added back in spite of absence of addition of the said loan in the assessment order in question. 11.3. In view of the above, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 41,03,863/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 41,03,863/- is directed to be deleted. 11.4. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground No. 4 is directed against the addition of Rs. 8,02,500/- made on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining the accommodation entries. 12.1. The facts in brief are that the Ld. AO, having treated the loans received from the three lender companies as accommodation entries, further presumed that the assessee must have paid commission for obtaining such entries and made an addition of Rs. 8,02,500/- under section 69C of the Act. The amount was computed by applying an assumed rate of 2.5% to the alleged accommodation-entry transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the said addition. 12.2. After hearing the rival contestants, we hold that since the underlying loan transactions themselves have not been established to be accommodation entries and there is also no independent evidence of actual payment of commission by the assessee, the addition of Rs. 8,02,500/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted.

Page 19 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 12.3. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2014- 15 in ITA No. 1520/KOL/2025 is partly allowed. 14. We now take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2739/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2014-15. 15. Ground No. 1 to 3 are material grounds raised by the Revenue are directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act in respect of the loan received from M/s K.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 15.1. The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer treated the loan received from M/s K.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained and made an addition of Rs.30,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made consequential additions of Rs.8,25,000/- on account of interest and Rs.75,000/- on account of commission. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the material available on record, deleted the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- and, consequently, deleted the aforesaid interest and commission additions. 15.2. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred ignoring the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. , Investigation Wing findings and the surrounding circumstances. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender and transactions were duly established. 15.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was received through banking channels and was duly recorded in the books of account. The amount was subsequently repaid along with interest before the Page 20 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. date of search. The assessee had also furnished the relevant documents relating to the lender. 15.4. We further note that no specific material has been brought on record to establish that the particular loan of Rs.30,00,000/- received by the assessee represented the assessee's own undisclosed income. The material referred to by the Revenue has not been shown to contain any specific link between the said loan transaction and any undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.5. It is also material to note that the loan transaction had been accepted in the earlier assessment proceedings of the assessee for A.Ys. 2013- 14 and 2014-15 and in the reassessment proceedings pursuant to search against assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue has not demonstrated any fresh transaction-specific material which would establish that the impugned loan represented the assessee’s undisclosed money. 15.6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 16. Ground no 4 of the revenue’s appeal is relating to CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 on low tax effect. Since both the parties have abstained from placing any arguments in relation to the said circular. We treat the same as infructuous. Accordingly Ground no 4 of the revenue’s appeal is also dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2739/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed.

Page 21 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 ITA 1521/KOL/2025 & ITA 2759/KOL/2025 18. We now take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1521/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2015-16. 19. Since the original grounds of appeal annexed to a form no. 36 are lengthy and argumentative, the appellant has submitted revised grounds of appeal. Since no objection has been raised by the Ld. DR, we accept the same. 20. Ground No. 1(a) and 1(b) relates to technical objections raised as to the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitations, but no serious arguments were advanced on behalf of the assessee by the Ld. Counsel for the aassessee. As such, we are dismissing Ground No. 1(a) and 1(b). 21. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of revised grounds of appeal of the assessee are directed against the disallowance of interest of Rs. 38,07,701/- and addition of Rs. 7,55,000/- on account of alleged commission in respect of the loans received by the assessee from the lender companies being Gleam, Gulzar and Sagun also from a fourth entity M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt Ltd(In short Krishnasudha). We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. While dealing with ground no 2 of the assessee’s revised grounds of appeal for AY 2014-15 in ITA no 1520/Kol/2025,We have already held that the loans taken by the assessee from the three companies being Gleam, Gulzar and Sagun are genuine and accordingly deleted the addition made by the A.O u/s 68. In the said appeal we have also deleted the addition made on account of interest on the said loans and alleged commission payments for obtaining alleged accommodation entries. As regards to the loan from the fourth entity M/s Krishnasudha, we are dealing this issue hereunder Page 22 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. while adjudicating revenue’s appeal in ITA no 2759/Kol/2026 relating to AY 2015-16. After persual of the material on record, we are inclined to hold the loan from the said entity to be genuine. following our findings recorded in the said appeals the disallowance of interest of Rs. 38,07,701/- and the addition of Rs. 7,55,000/- on account of alleged commission, being consequential, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015- 16 in ITA No. 1521/KOL/2025 is partly allowed. 23. We now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2759/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2015-16. 24. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are interconnected and relate to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,05,32,835/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit and the issue of computation of peak credit. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The Assessing Officer had treated the loans received by the assessee from the concerned lender companies being Gleam Gulzar, Sagun and Krishnasudha as accommodation entries and, on that basis, made the addition of Rs. 1,05,32,835/- by working out the alleged peak credit. The Ld. CIT(A.), while considering the alternative contention of the assessee, deleted the addition on the basis of the combined peak-credit working. 24.1. As regarding additions related to Gleam, Gulzar and Sagun, we have already considered the very same issue in the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA no 1520/Kol/2025.

Page 23 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 24.2. While dealing with ground no 2 of the assessee’s revised grounds of appeal for AY 2014-15 in ITA no 1520/Kol/2025 ,We have already held that the loans taken by the assessee from the three companies being Gleam, Gulzar and Sagun are genuine and accordingly deleted the addition made by the A.O u/s 68. In the said appeal we have also deleted the addition made on account of interest on the said loans and alleged commission payments for obtaining alleged accommodation entries. In view of above, we uphold the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,05,32,835/- on merits. Our conclusion is not founded merely on the combined peak-credit computation adopted by the Ld. CIT(A.), but on our finding that the Revenue has failed to establish that the loan transactions represented the assessee’s undisclosed money. It is material to point out here that in the instant year, the assessee had taken loans from the three entities from whom loans were taken in the preceding year, viz., Gleam, Gulzar and Sagun , loan was also taken from a fourth entity, viz., M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. (for short, Krishnasudha), in respect of which peak credit was worked out at ₹90,00,000/- by the A.O. and added back by him.We note from the record that M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. is an active company as per the company master data downloaded from the MCA website. It has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015–16 on 30.09.2015. A perusal of its final accounts reveals that its net worth as on 31.03.2015 is ₹48 crore, whereas the loan advanced to the assessee is a small fraction of its net worth. Its gross revenue is also a decent figure of ₹1.45 crore.The loan confirmation placed at page 147 reveals that interest of ₹89,384/- was charged on the loan received to the tune of ₹90 lakh, and TDS was also deducted thereon.

Page 24 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 24.3. Further, the loan amounts were received through three tranches by account-payee cheques, as is evident from the loan confirmations and bank statements placed in the paper book. 24.4. Further, assessment was earlier framed under section 143(3) on 28.12.2017, wherein no adverse inference as to the genuineness or nature of the loan given to the assessee had been drawn. We, therefore, hold that the loan from M/s Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. is genuine. The A.O. has drawn an adverse inference in respect of the loan from the said company on the same basis as in the case of the three companies mentioned hereinabove. 24.5. While dealing with ground no 2 of the assessee’s revised grounds of appeal for AY 2014-15 in ITA no 1520/Kol/2025, We have already held that the loans taken by the assessee from the three companies being Gleam, Gulzar and Sagun are genuine and accordingly deleted the addition made by the A.O u/s 68. In the said appeal we have also deleted the addition made on account of interest on the said loans and alleged commission payments for obtaining alleged accommodation entries. The said findings equally apply here in respect of loans taken from all the four entities Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 25. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A.) in accepting the alleged receipt and repayment of the loan transactions in cash and, according to the Revenue, such receipt and repayment are contrary to the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. 25.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The case of the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had allegedly paid its unaccounted cash to Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal, against which the assessee received amounts through banking Page 25 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. channels in the guise of unsecured loans and, upon repayment of such loans, the corresponding cash was allegedly returned to the assessee after deduction of commission. It was on the basis of this alleged cash movement that the Assessing Officer treated the negative peak credit arising from his working as the assessee’s undisclosed and unaccounted money. 25.2. We find, however, that the aforesaid alleged cash movement has not been established by any independent and transaction-specific material. No material has been brought on record demonstrating the actual payment of cash by the assessee to Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal in respect of each of the loans in question, specifying the date, amount, place or source of such cash. Likewise, there is no transaction-wise evidence establishing that, upon repayment of the respective loans through banking channels, equivalent cash was actually returned to the assessee. The statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer may form the basis of an allegation regarding the general modus of accommodation entries, but in the absence of corroborative material linking such alleged cash movement to the specific loan transactions of the assessee, the same cannot establish that the particular loan credits represented the assessee’s own undisclosed money. 25.3. Further, the statement made pursuant to search has been retracted and nothing has been bought on record to disapprove the retraction and it could not be proved the retraction was not in accordance with law. 25.4. We have already examined the documentary evidence relating to the lenders, the banking transactions and the other material relied upon by the Revenue while adjudicating the substantive issue. On such examination, we have found that the Revenue has failed to establish Page 26 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. that the loan transactions represented the assessee’s undisclosed money. Once the very factual premise that the particular loan transactions were funded out of the assessee’s undisclosed cash is not established, the alleged cash movement forming the basis of the peak-credit theory also cannot be treated as established merely on the basis of such allegation. 25.5. In this view of the matter, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T, which are sought to be invoked by the Revenue on the premise of receipt and repayment of the loans in cash, cannot provide an independent basis for sustaining the addition made under section 68. The question of contravention of the said provisions would arise only upon establishment of the alleged cash acceptance or repayment itself. In the present case, the Revenue has failed to establish such cash movement in respect of the specific loan transactions in question. 25.6. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 26. Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue is in respect of the applicability of the CBDT circular prescribing monetary limits for filing departmental appeals, on the ground that the present case falls within the exception relating to accommodation entries. We have already adjudicated similar grounds, being Ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2739/KOL/2025 relating to A.Y. 2014– 15, wherein we have treated the said ground to be infructuous. Following the same, we dismiss Ground No. 5 of the instant appeal as infructuous. 27. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2759/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed.

Page 27 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2016-17

ITA 1522/KOL/2025 & ITA 2760/KOL/2025 28. We now take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2016- 17 in ITA No. 1522/KOL/2025. 29. Ground No. 1(a) and 1(b) relates to technical objections raised as to the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitations, but no serious arguments were advanced on behalf of the assessee by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. As such, we are dismissing Ground No. 1(a) and 1(b). 30. Ground No. 2 (Revised) is directed against the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) to ₹1,38,38,847/- against the addition of peak loan from the four lender companies dealt with by us in appeals relating to preceding years. The A.O. like in preceding years, made additions on account of unexplained cash credits in respect of loans taken by working out peak credits as under: (a) Sagun: NIL (b)Krishnasudha: ₹19,10,616/- (c) Gulzar: ₹6,71,684/- (d) Gleam: NIL Total: ₹25,82,308/- 30.1. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), though he did not accept the contention of the assessee that loans taken were genuine and could not be added under section 68, he accepted the alternative plea that instead of individual peak credit, combined peak credit ought to be taken. He accordingly worked out combined peak credit, which led to enhancement of the addition from ₹25,82,300/- to ₹1,38,38,847/- (further addition of ₹1,12,56,547/-). 30.2. We have elaborately discussed the genuineness of loans from the four entities in question while adjudicating appeals relating to A.Y.

Page 28 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 2014–15 and A.Y. 2015–16 and have deleted the additions made on merits. The facts available on record and the nature of documents/evidence submitted by the appellant–assessee before the authorities below in regard to the loan transactions in question are substantially similar. Therefore our findings in these two preceding years apply in respect of the loans taken from these four entities and apply mutatis mutandis to the instant appeal as well. We accordingly direct the A.O. to delete the addition of ₹25,82,300/- on account of peak loans from these entities, as well as the enhancement of ₹1,12,56,547/- made by the Ld. CIT(A). 31. Ground No. 3 is directed against the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 43,77,783/-. Since the addition on account of loans itself has been deleted, the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 43,77,783/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed. 32. Ground No. 4 is directed against the addition of Rs. 6,60,000/- on account of alleged commission paid. Since the underlying loan transactions have been held to be genuine and the addition on account of loans has been deleted, the consequential addition of Rs. 6,60,000/- on account of alleged commission paid also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 33. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2016- 17 in ITA No. 1522/KOL/2025 is allowed. 34. We now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2760/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2016-17. 35. Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-

Page 29 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s Shri Krishna Commosales Pvt. Ltd. 35.1. The facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee allotted 15,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each to M/s Shri Krishna Commosales Pvt. Ltd. at a premium of Rs. 12/- per share for a total consideration of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act alleging that the amount represented the assessee’s own undisclosed and unaccounted money routed through M/s Shri Krishna Commosales Pvt. Ltd. 35.2. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. had substantial share capital and premium which were invested in other companies and that the assessee had allegedly routed its unaccounted money through liquidation of such investments by the said company. The Assessing Officer accordingly treated the amount of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- received towards share application money as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 35.3. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the material available on record, noted that the assessee had furnished the relevant documentary evidence in respect of M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd., including company master data, income-tax return, audited financial statements, confirmation, statement of source of funds and assessment order passed under section 143(3) for assessment year 2016-17. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the earlier assessment records of the said company. 35.4. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the share capital and premium of M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. had been examined in the Page 30 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. earlier assessment proceedings and that the investments and subsequent transactions of the said company had also been considered in its assessment proceedings. 35.5. The Ld. CIT(A) specifically examined the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had routed its unaccounted money through M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. by liquidation of investments in certain companies. However, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer had not cited any document discovered during the search, post-search proceedings or assessment proceedings to establish such alleged routing of unaccounted funds. 35.6. The Ld. CIT(A) also examined the allegation regarding control of M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. through appointment of certain directors and found the same not to be supported by the facts on record. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 35.7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. We find that the assessee had placed on record the corporate, income-tax and financial particulars of M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. The existence and identity of the investor company are not in dispute and the transaction relating to allotment of shares is duly reflected in the books and supporting records. 35.8. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT v. Shipra Enclave Pvt. Ltd., ITAT 94/2025, dated 04.02.2026, while considering an addition under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium, upheld the deletion of the addition where the assessee had furnished documentary evidence relating to the subscriber companies and the transactions were supported by banking records. The Hon’ble High Court also held that, in the absence of material establishing a live link showing that the funds Page 31 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. originated from the assessee’s own coffers, the documented transactions could not be displaced merely on the basis of suspicion. 35.9. Further, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT v. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., ITAT 95/2025, dated 04.02.2026, upheld the deletion of an addition under section 68 relating to share capital and share premium where the assessee had furnished the relevant corporate, income-tax, financial and banking records of the subscriber companies and the Revenue had not brought contrary material to displace the same. The Hon’ble High Court reiterated that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that a specific nexus has to be established where the Revenue alleges that the funds originated from the assessee. 35.10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the Revenue has not brought on record any specific material establishing that the amount of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- received against allotment of shares represented the assessee’s own undisclosed money. The allegation of routing of funds through M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. remains unsupported by any transaction-specific material connecting the alleged undisclosed funds of the assessee with the impugned share application money. 35.11. The mere existence of investment and liquidation transactions in the hands of the investor company cannot, by itself, establish that the amount invested in the assessee-company represented the assessee’s own undisclosed income. The relevant question is whether the Revenue has established the nexus between such alleged undisclosed funds and the amount received by the assessee. No such specific nexus has been demonstrated in the present case. 35.12. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded specific findings on the allegations made by the Assessing Officer and the Page 32 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has not brought before us any material to dislodge those findings. In particular, there is no specific document found during search or post-search proceedings establishing the alleged routing of the assessee’s undisclosed funds through M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. 35.13. In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of PCIT v. Shipra Enclave Pvt. Ltd. and PCIT v. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 36. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,41,892/- debited to the Profit & Loss Account on the unsecured loans received from M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. 36.1. After hearing the parties and perusal of records, we find that the A.O. has observed that the assessee had taken loans aggregating to ₹2,93,50,000/- from M/s Shri Krishna Commercials, which was refunded during the year itself to the extent of ₹2,11,91,892/-. The said entity invested ₹3,30,00,000/- by way of share application money in the assessee out of repayment of loan and by adding further funds. The A.O. quantified the interest on loan to the said entity at ₹3,41,892/- and disallowed the same on the plea that the unsecured loan is bogus and represented undisclosed and unaccounted money of the assessee.On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. We have already held the source of share capital, which is substantially financed by the return of loan, to be genuine. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with

Page 33 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of interest. 36.2. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., ITAT 268/2024, dated 17.12.2024, considered an addition under section 68 on account of unsecured loans alleged to have been received from shell companies and the consequential disallowance of interest. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the deletion of both the substantive addition and consequential interest after noting that the factual findings of the appellate authorities had been duly examined and that the loans stood repaid. 36.3. In the present case, we have already upheld the deletion of the substantive addition of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-. Once the very basis on which the interest was disallowed does not survive, the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,41,892/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,40,200/- debited to the Profit & Loss Account on unsecured loans received through M/s Suruchi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and other alleged shell entities. 37.1. The Assessing Officer treated the loan received from M/s Suruchi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. as part of the alleged accommodation-entry transactions and, on that basis, disallowed interest of Rs. 4,40,200/- . The Ld. CIT(A), while examining the peak-credit position, found that there was no negative peak and consequently no addition on account of the loan itself was called for. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the consequential interest disallowance.

Page 34 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 37.2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The very basis for the disallowance of interest was the allegation that the underlying loan represented unexplained accommodation entry. Once no addition on account of the said loan survives, the consequential interest disallowance cannot independently be sustained without establishing that the interest expenditure itself represents unexplained expenditure. 37.3. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. is also relevant, wherein the Revenue’s challenge to deletion of the section 68 addition relating to unsecured loans and the consequential interest was dismissed. 37.4. In the present case, no independent material has been brought on record establishing that the interest of Rs. 4,40,200/- represented unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 38. Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of alleged commission paid to the accommodation-entry operator for facilitating accommodation entries through M/s Suruchi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 38.1. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the allegation that commission had been paid for arranging the accommodation entry. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the fact that the underlying loan transaction did not result in any addition on account of unexplained cash credit. 38.2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The addition on account of commission is consequential to

Page 35 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. the allegation that the assessee had obtained accommodation entry through M/s Suruchi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Once the underlying transaction has not resulted in any addition on account of unexplained cash credit, the Revenue has to establish independently the actual payment of commission and its nexus with the alleged accommodation entry. 38.3. No independent material establishing the actual payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- as commission has been brought on record. The addition is based upon the same underlying allegation which has not been established. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 39. Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in relying upon routine confirmations and banking channel transactions while, according to the Revenue, ignoring the findings of the Investigation Wing and the Assessing Officer, the statements of the directors, the financial credibility of the concerned companies and the alleged fund trail. 39.1. We have already considered the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer while adjudicating the preceding grounds. The mere fact that the Investigation Wing or the Assessing Officer entertained a suspicion regarding the nature of the transactions cannot by itself establish that the particular amounts received by the assessee represented its undisclosed money. 39.2. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Narayan Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., ITAT 76/2025, dated 10.06.2025, considered a case where the Revenue relied upon a third-party statement which had subsequently been retracted, whereas the assessee had furnished documentary evidence and the concerned parties had confirmed the transactions in response to notices under section 133(6). The Hon’ble Page 36 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. High Court upheld the Tribunal’s factual finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. 39.3. Similarly, in PCIT v. Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Ltd., ITAT 133/2025, dated 05.08.2025, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court noted that the assessee had furnished books of account, income-tax records, balance sheet, bank statement, loan confirmation and the assessment order of the loan creditor, while the Assessing Officer had relied upon a third-party statement and had denied cross- examination. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed. 39.4. In the present case also, the Revenue has not demonstrated any specific defect in the documentary evidence relating to the impugned transactions or brought any transaction-specific material establishing that the amounts represented the assessee’s own undisclosed funds. The general allegations regarding accommodation entries, financial credibility or fund movement cannot substitute such specific evidence. 39.5. We therefore find no merit in Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed. 40. Ground No. 7 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions relating to share capital and unsecured loans without conducting further enquiry under section 250(4) of the Act. 40.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the assessment records, the documentary evidence and the specific allegations made by the Assessing Officer before recording his findings. The Revenue has not identified any particular document or specific enquiry which

Page 37 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. remained necessary for adjudication of the issues and which could have altered the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). 40.2. The power under section 250(4) is an enabling power available to the appellate authority for making further enquiry where the facts of the case so require. The mere fact that the Ld. CIT(A) arrived at a conclusion different from that of the Assessing Officer does not, by itself, establish that further enquiry was mandatory. 40.3. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has examined the material relating to the impugned transactions and has recorded specific factual findings. No specific infirmity in such examination has been pointed out by the Revenue. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 7 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2760/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2016-17 is dismissed. AY: 2017-18 ITA No. 1523/KOL/2025 & ITA No. 2761/KOL/2025 42. We now take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1523/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2017-18. 43. Ground no 1 of the revised grounds of appeal is directed against the disallowance of interest of Rs 22,20,560/-.The relevant facts relating to the instant ground taken by the assessee’s are that the A.O. found in the course of assessment that the assessee-company had taken loans and paid interest during the year in question to/from the four companies as under— Name of Lender Assessment Year Unsecured Loan (₹) Interest on Loan (₹) Gleam Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2017–18 33,00,000 7,47,272 Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. 2017–18 30,00,000 7,89,287 Krishnasudha Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. 2017–18 — 6,31,233 Sagun Commercial Private Ltd. 2017–18 — 52,768 Page 38 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Name of Lender Assessment Year Unsecured Loan (₹) Interest on Loan (₹) GRAND TOTAL 63,00,000 22,20,560 43.1. Like in the preceding years, he worked out peak cash flow/peak credit and found that there was no negative cash flow, i.e., introduction of further capital/cash during the instant year. He, therefore, did not proceed to make any addition on account of fresh loans taken from the aforementioned companies. However, since according to him, the loans were nothing but the assessee’s own undisclosed money introduced in the assesse’s books in the guise of loans, he proceeded to add back the interest debited in the assessee’s books to the tune of ₹22,20,560/- on the loans in question. 43.2. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), he passed the order reiterating his findings in earlier years, holding these loans to be bogus. As such, he confirmed the disallowance of interest. 43.3. We have elaborately discussed the genuineness of loans from these four entities while adjudicating appeals relating to A.Y. 2014–15 and A.Y. 2015–16 and have deleted the additions made by the A.O. on account of loans from these entities.On perusal of the material on record, we find that the view taken in the preceding years about the genuineness of loans cannot be departed from. We accordingly direct the A.O. to delete the addition made on account of disallowance of interest on these loans to the tune of ₹22,20,560/-. 43.4. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 (Revised) raised by the assessee is allowed. 44. Ground No. 2 is directed against the addition of Rs. 1,57,500/- on account of alleged commission. Since the underlying loan transactions have been held to be genuine and the disallowance of interest has been deleted, the consequential addition of Rs. 1,57,500/- on account of alleged commission also cannot be Page 39 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. sustained. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 45. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017- 18 in ITA No. 1523/KOL/2025 is partly allowed. 46. We now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2761/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2017-18. 47. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are directed against the deletion of addition of Rs. 5,69,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act in respect of the loan/share application money received by the assessee from M/s Shri Krishna Commosales Pvt. Ltd. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The undisputed facts emerging from the record are that during the year the assessee received loans aggregating to Rs. 5,69,00,000/- from M/s Shri Krishna Commosales Pvt. Ltd., which were refunded along with interest, and out of the amount so refunded, the said company share application of Rs. 4,84,00,000/- against which 22,00,000 equity shares were allotted. The assessee had furnished the corporate records, ITR, audited financial statements, confirmation, bank statements and statement showing the source of funds of the lender company. It was also submitted that the source of funds of M/s Shri Krishna Commosales Pvt. Ltd. was sale of investments acquired in earlier years. It was further pointed out that the return of the lender company had been accepted in regular assessment proceedings. The assessee had also furnished a peak- credit working of Rs. 4.05 crore and submitted that the higher amount of loan and share application money could alone be considered, if at all. 47.1. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the entire amount of Rs. 5,69,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit on the allegation that M/s Page 40 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. was a shell company, that its investments in other companies were liquidated for routing the assessee’s unaccounted money and that persons connected with the assessee had taken control of the sad company. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the material on record, found that the allegation regarding the nature of the lender company was not supported by sufficient material. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the share capital and premium of the lender company had already been accepted in its regular assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 and that its investments and subsequent sale had also been considered in its regular assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) further found that the allegation regarding control of the lender company was factually incorrect, as Disha Bhaiya was never a director of the assessee company, Sarla Bhaiya was appointed only in F.Y. 2017-18, Ashok Kumar Bhaiya joined only in the last week of March, 2017, there was no change in the shareholding of M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. and the assessee company did not hold any shares therein. It was also found that the Assessing Officer had not cited any document discovered during search, post-search or assessment proceedings establishing that the assessee had routed its unaccounted funds through liquidation of investments by M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. 47.2. We find that the issue involved in these grounds is substantially similar to the issue considered by us while adjudicating the Ground no 1 and 2 in the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17. In that year, after considering the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, the financial capacity of the concerned companies, the banking transactions and the material relied upon by the Revenue, we have held that the mere allegation of accommodation entry, without sufficient transaction-specific corroborative material

Page 41 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. establishing that the amount received by the assessee represented its own undisclosed money, cannot by itself justify an addition. In the present case also, the Revenue has not brought on record any specific material to establish such nexus. The fact that the lender company had made investments in other companies, or that certain persons became directors thereof, cannot by itself establish that the funds received by the assessee represented its own undisclosed money, particularly when the documentary evidence relating to the lender, its source of funds, banking transactions and earlier assessments was placed on record and the specific allegations regarding control and routing of funds were not borne out from the material. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,69,00,000/. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 48. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of disallowance of interest of Rs. 13,60,602/- and Rs. 3,41,892/-. In regard to the above ground, it is material to point out that there is no disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,41,892/- . As such this part of the revenue’s ground is infructuous and requires not adjudication. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The disallowance of Rs. 13,60,602/- relates to interest paid on unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 1,55,00,000/- received from M/s Orchid VanijyaPvt. Ltd., M/s Pravesh Credit & Securities Ltd. and M/s Ratnanandan Commercials Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs. 55,00,000/-, Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- respectively. The Assessing Officer treated the said loans as bogus and accommodation entries and consequently disallowed the interest. The assessee, in support of the transactions, furnished company master data, returns of income, audited financial statements, bank

Page 42 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. statements and confirmations of the lender companies. It was submitted that the lenders were active companies and regular income-tax assessees having sufficient net worth. The net worth of the three lenders was stated at Rs. 50.51 crore, Rs. 91.43 crore and Rs. 61.23 crore respectively, against the loans advanced to the assessee of Rs. 55 lakh, Rs. 50 lakh and Rs. 50 lakh. 48.1. It was further submitted that the transactions had taken place through banking channels, were duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the audited financial statements and returns of income of the lenders and there was no immediate cash deposit in their bank accounts. The lenders had confirmed the transactions and explained the source of their funds. The assessee further submitted that the loans had been fully repaid much before the search. 48.2. The Assessing Officer, however, proceeded principally on the basis of the statement of Shri Sanjay Singhi recorded during survey proceedings, wherein accommodation entries were alleged to have been provided through various companies. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material on record, noted that the statement was not corroborated by any material whatsoever. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that despite specific request, the assessee was neither provided the copy of the statement nor afforded an opportunity of cross-examination. The Ld. CIT(A) also found that the assessee had furnished the master data, returns of income, audited financial statements, bank statements and confirmations of the lender companies and that the lenders were having sufficient own funds, whereas the Assessing Officer had simply rejected the evidence furnished by the assessee without carrying out any inquiry.

Page 43 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 48.3. We find that the documentary evidence placed on record establishes the existence of the lender companies, their financial capacity and the banking nature of the transactions. The Revenue has not brought on record any specific material demonstrating that the particular loans received by the assessee represented its own undisclosed money. The statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer has not been supported by any transaction-specific corroborative material. Further, the fact that the loans were recorded in the books of the lenders, reflected in their financial statements and returns and were subsequently repaid before the search, has also not been controverted by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the mere allegation that the lenders were used for providing accommodation entries cannot, by itself, justify the consequential disallowance of interest. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,60,602/-. Accordingly, to this extent, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 49. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of the additions of Rs. 14,22,500/- and Rs. 3,87,500/- on account of alleged commission paid in respect of the loans received from M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. and M/s Orchid VanijyaPvt. Ltd., M/s Pravesh Credit & Securities Ltd. and M/s Ratnanandan Commercials Pvt. Ltd. respectively. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The Assessing Officer had treated the aforesaid loan transactions as accommodation entries and, applying the notional commission rate of 2.5%, made the aforesaid additions. The assessee submitted that the loan transactions were genuine and, in respect of M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd., the said company was a group company and therefore there was no question of payment of

Page 44 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. commission. It was further submitted that the additions were not supported by any corroborative evidence. In respect of the other three lenders also, the assessee submitted that the loans were genuine and consequently no commission could be said to have been paid. 49.1. The Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the addition of Rs. 14,22,500/- relating to M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd., deleted the same as consequential to the deletion of the substantive addition relating to the loan/share application money received from the said company. Similarly, in respect of the commission of Rs. 3,87,500/- relating to M/s Orchid VanijyaPvt. Ltd., M/s Pravesh Credit & Securities Ltd. and M/s Ratnanandan Commercials Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A), having held the corresponding loan transactions to be genuine, deleted the commission addition as consequential. 49.2. We have already considered the issue relating to the loan/share application money received from M/s Shri Krishna CommosalesPvt. Ltd. while adjudicating Ground Nos. 1 and 2 above and have found no material to sustain the substantive addition of Rs. 5,69,00,000/- . Likewise, while adjudicating Ground No. 3 above, we have upheld the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the genuineness of the loans received from M/s Orchid VanijyaPvt. Ltd., M/s Pravesh Credit & Securities Ltd. and M/s Ratnanandan Commercials Pvt. Ltd. Once the substantive loan transactions have been found to be genuine, the consequential additions made towards alleged commission cannot independently survive, particularly when no separate material has been brought on record by the Revenue to establish the actual payment of such commission. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions of Rs. 14,22,500/- and

Page 45 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,87,500/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 50. Ground No. 5 and 6 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,42,71,346/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged suppression of sale of scrap by showing superior quality scrap as inferior quality scrap in the books of account. Ground No. 6 is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said addition by allegedly ignoring the discrepancies in the scrap register, seized digital data relating to cash sale of scrap, statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and the quantification of suppressed scrap sales made by the Assessing Officer. 50.1. The AO made the addition of Rs.2,42,71,346/- towards alleged unaccounted scrap sales on the basis of the statements of Shri Satya Vijay Singh, Supervisor, Shri Yogendra Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya, Director of the assessee-company, and Shri Suresh Kumar Ghorawat, Head Commercial Department, as well as the data found in the pen drive of Shri Kailash Kumar Pareek. The AO proceeded on the basis that superior quality scrap was being shown as inferior quality scrap in the books of account and the difference in price was being received in cash. The AO further relied upon the data for the period from July 2017 to November 2017 found in the pen drive and extrapolated the same with the production data for different years. The AO accordingly worked out the alleged unaccounted scrap sales for AY 2017-18 at Rs.2,42,71,346/-. 50.2. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition as the AO had relied upon the seized digital material, discrepancies in the scrap records and the statements recorded during the search and post-search proceedings. It was submitted Page 46 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. that Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya had admitted that superior quality scrap was being shown as inferior quality scrap and the difference was being received in cash. It was accordingly submitted that the addition made by the AO was supported by the material found during the search and ought to be restored. 50.3. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that the addition was based upon an estimation and extrapolation of the material found in the pen drive. It was submitted that the specific data relating to alleged unaccounted scrap sales was only for the period from July 2017 to November 2017 and there was no material in the pen drive establishing unaccounted scrap sales for the year under consideration. It was further submitted that the Excel data by itself did not establish that scrap had actually been under-invoiced or that any cash had actually been received by the assessee. 50.4. The Ld. AR further submitted that the statements of Shri Satya Vijay Singh and Shri Yogendra Kumar could not by themselves establish the alleged suppression of scrap sales and that the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya had subsequently been retracted and was not supported by independent corroborative material. It was also submitted that the assessee had specifically disputed the reliance placed upon the statements and the seized material in the absence of any transaction-wise corroboration. 50.5. The Ld. AR also, in the alternative challenged the computation made by the AO. It was submitted that the AO had applied the rate of aluminium gatta of Rs.130/- per kg to the entire quantity of C-grade scrap, although only 30% of such quantity was considered to represent aluminium gatta. It was submitted that the said method had resulted in substantial over-estimation of the alleged scrap sales. Page 47 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 50.6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has duly considered the pen drive, the statements recorded during the search and post-search proceedings and the basis adopted by the AO for quantifying the alleged unaccounted scrap sales. The Ld. CIT(A), while considering the material relied upon by the AO, accepted that the pen drive contained details of alleged unaccounted scrap sales for the period from July 2017 to November 2017. However, he found that there was no basis for extrapolating such data to other periods for which no such specific material was found. 50.7. We further find that the specific unaccounted scrap sale details contained in the pen drive related to FY 2017-18, relevant to AY 2018-19, and not to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2017-18. The Ld. CIT(A) has specifically recorded this finding while deleting the addition. Thus, the material relied upon by the AO did not establish any specific unaccounted scrap sale pertaining to FY 2016- 17 relevant to AY 2017-18. 50.8. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that even during the period from July 2017 to November 2017, the assessee had sold scrap to persons other than those whose names appeared in the pen drive. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted scrap sales in respect of the entire production merely on the basis of the limited data found in the pen drive was not justified. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly held that such estimation by way of permutation, combination, interpolation or extrapolation could not form the basis of the addition. 50.9. We further find that the computation adopted by the AO suffers from a material error. The AO had applied the rate of Rs.130/- per kg, being the rate of aluminium gatta, to the entire quantity of C-grade scrap, although the aluminium gatta component was only 30% of the Page 48 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. said quantity. On examination of the computation, the Ld. CIT(A) found that this resulted in excess estimation of Rs.22,31,71,410/- for the relevant years. The Ld. CIT(A) also recorded that even on applying the alternative rate of Rs.27.50/- per kg, the excess estimation worked out to Rs.25,13,74,392/-. 50.10. The above computational error is significant since the aggregate addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 to AY 2021-22 was Rs.8,32,55,162/-, whereas the error in the estimation itself was found to be much higher than the total addition. Therefore, the basis adopted by the AO for quantification of the alleged unaccounted scrap sales cannot be treated as a reliable basis for determining the undisclosed income of the assessee. 50.11. As regards the contention of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the statements recorded u/s 132(4), scrap register and seized digital material, we find that the said contention is not borne out from the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the pen drive and the statements of the concerned persons. However, after considering the same, he found that the material did not justify extrapolation of the specific data found for July 2017 to November 2017 to the entire production and to the year under consideration. 50.12. In our considered view, the existence of material indicating possible under-invoicing of scrap during a particular period cannot, by itself, establish the precise amount of unaccounted scrap sales for another assessment year for which no corresponding material has been identified. The Revenue has not brought before us any specific transaction, entry or other corroborative material establishing unaccounted scrap sales of Rs.2,42,71,346/- during FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18.

Page 49 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 50.13. We also find that the impugned addition represents the difference between the estimated scrap revenue and the scrap sales recorded in the books, rather than the result of identification of specific unaccounted transactions pertaining to the year under consideration. Once the very basis of estimation is found to be defective and the seized data itself pertains to a subsequent financial year, the resultant estimated difference cannot be sustained merely on the basis of statements or general observations regarding suppression of scrap sales. 50.14. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,42,71,346/-. The material relied upon by the AO did not establish unaccounted scrap sales pertaining to AY 2017-18 and the methodology adopted for quantification was also found to suffer from substantial computational error. 50.15. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,42,71,346/- is upheld. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 51. Ground No. 7 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in relying upon the confirmations and banking transactions furnished by the assessee while, according to the Revenue, ignoring the findings of the Investigation Wing, the findings of the Assessing Officer, the statements recorded during the course of search and post-search proceedings, the financial credibility of the lender companies, the fund trail and the surrounding circumstances. This groundrelates to deletion of addition on account of various loan and consequential interest and commission additions challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal which we have elaborately discussed and adjudicated upon in preceeding paras. Page 50 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 51.1. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the additions merely on the basis of confirmations or the fact that the transactions were routed through banking channels. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the documents furnished by the assessee in respect of the concerned lender companies, including their company master data, returns of income, audited financial statements, bank statements, confirmations and source of funds. It was also noted that the lender companies were income-tax assessees, their returns had been filed and their assessments had been completed in various years without any finding that the companies were shell entities or that the corresponding transactions represented accommodation entries. The assessee had also placed on record that the lender companies had sufficient owned funds and that there were no immediate cash deposits corresponding to the amounts advanced. 51.2. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) also considered the statements of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal and Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya, the WhatsApp material and the other material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had specifically disputed the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal on the ground that he was not a director of the lender companies, that his statement had not been affirmed by the directors of the lender companies, that the WhatsApp images did not themselves establish accommodation entries, that no opportunity of cross-examination had been afforded despite request and that the statement had subsequently been retracted. Similar objections were raised in respect of the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya, which was also stated to have been retracted. 51.3. We have considered the aforesaid material while adjudicating the preceding grounds. We find that the existence of general information Page 51 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. regarding accommodation-entry activities or the retracted/untested statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer cannot, by itself, establish that each of the particular loan transactions recorded in the books of the assessee represented its own undisclosed money. The Revenue was required to establish the specific nexus between the alleged undisclosed funds of the assessee and the particular credits, and also to establish the basis for the consequential disallowance of interest and addition of commission. 51.4. In the present case, the loan transactions were recorded in the books and were supported by confirmations, banking records and financial particulars of the concerned lenders. The Revenue has not brought on record any specific transaction-wise material establishing that the assessee had paid cash to the concerned lenders in exchange for the amounts received through banking channels. Similarly, the alleged fund trail, though missing and surrounding circumstances, without establishing such specific nexus, cannot by themselves convert the recorded loan transactions into the assessee's undisclosed income. 51.5. We also find that the consequential interest and commission additions cannot be sustained independently when the very foundation of the Revenue's case regarding the underlying loan transactions has not been established. In the preceding grounds, we have already examined the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer and have found that the allegation that the impugned amounts represented the assessee's own undisclosed money has not been established by any evidence. The same finding equally governs the consequential interest and commission issues. 51.6. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues covered by Ground No. 7. Accordingly, Ground No. 7 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Page 52 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 52. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not conducting further enquiry under section 250(4) of the Act. 52.1. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) examined the assessment record and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer before arriving at his conclusions on the various issues. The Revenue has not pointed out any specific evidence which was required to be brought on record by the Ld. CIT(A) and which would establish that the impugned loan transactions or the other additions deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) represented the assessee's undisclosed income. Merely because the Ld. CIT(A) arrived at a conclusion different from that of the Assessing Officer cannot, by itself, make further enquiry under section 250(4) mandatory. Ld. DR failed to point out what further enquires were required to be made by ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 53. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2761/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed. AY: 2018-19 ITA No. 1524/KOL/2025 & ITA No. 2788/KOL/2025 54. We now take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1524/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19. 55. Ground No. 1 is directed against the disallowance of interest of Rs.25,71,632/- paid to Gleam, Gulzar. and Krishnasudha. This issue is similar to assessee’s appeal in ground no 1 in ITA no. 1525/Kol/2025 for AY 2017-18. Following our findings on the said appeal in assessee’s ground no 1, we direct deletion of the disallowance of Rs.25,71,632/-. Ground No. 2 is allowed.

Page 53 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 56. Ground No. 2 is consequential to Ground No. 2 and relates to alleged commission of Rs.1,20,000/- paid for allegedly obtaining bogus loans. Our findings recorded in ground no 2 of the aforesaid assessee’s appeal squarely applies to the instant case. Following the same, the consequential commission addition is also directed to be deleted. Ground No. 2 is allowed. 57. Ground No. 3 is directed against the confirmation of addition of Rs.31,24,975/- on account of alleged unaccounted scrap sales. 57.1. The AO had originally made an addition of Rs.2,11,58,512/- on account of alleged unaccounted scrap sales on the basis of statements recorded during the search and data contained in a pen drive. The Ld. CIT(A), however, restricted the addition to Rs.31,24,975/- and deleted the balance addition. The assessee is therefore in appeal before us against the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The ground raised before us challenges the surviving addition of Rs.31,24,975/- on the basis that the same was made solely on the basis of pen-drive data without corroborative or independent material. 57.2. The Ld. AR submitted that the pen drive contained data relating to the period July 2017 to November 2017 and that the same, by itself, could not establish that the entries represented actual unaccounted scrap sales of the assessee. It was submitted that no independent corroborative material establishing the corresponding receipt of unaccounted sale consideration had been brought on record. The Ld. AR further submitted that the statements relied upon by the AO were either not supported by independent material or had subsequently been retracted. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the AO had extrapolated the data beyond the period contained in the pen drive

Page 54 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. and that the computation adopted by the AO suffered from errors in converting the scrap quantities and applying the rates. 57.3. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the pen-drive data, considered along with the statements recorded during the search, established the unaccounted scrap sales. 57.4. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in his order. At page 66 of his order, he has reproduced the working/details of unaccounted sale of scrap of ₹31,24,975/- made during the relevant year. The said details were extracted from the pen drive found from the possession of Sri Kailash Pareek, an employee of the assessee’s company. The Ld. A/R appearing for the assessee’s could not controvert the contents of the pen drive. 57.5. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the aforesaid addition of ₹31,24,975/-. 57.6. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of the assessee appeal is dismissed. 58. Ground No. 4 is directed against the confirmation of addition of Rs.65,97,101/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash receipts and payments. 58.1. The AO, on the basis of the ledger of AA Enterprises for FY 2017-18 found during the search, noted cash receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- and cash payments of Rs.3,43,42,247/-. The AO treated the higher figure of receipts as unaccounted business receipts and, after telescoping Rs.2,11,58,512/- against the scrap-sale addition, made a net addition of Rs.1,43,00,788/-. 58.2. The Ld. AR submitted that the seized material was required to be considered as a whole and that, since the same document contained both receipts and payments relating to purchase and sale Page 55 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. transactions, the receipts could not be considered in isolation. According to the assessee, the difference between the receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- and payments of Rs.3,43,42,247/- comes to Rs.11,17,053/-, which alone could represent the income arising from such transactions. 58.3. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the principle that the seized material could not be selectively considered and determined the peak credit at Rs.97,22,076/-. After reducing the scrap-sale addition of Rs.31,24,975/-, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs.65,97,101/-. 58.4. The Ld. DR relied upon the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the seized material and the statements recorded during the search established the unaccounted cash transactions. 58.5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. It is undisputed that the very material relied upon by the Revenue records both cash receipts and cash payments. Once the transactions are treated as business transactions, the corresponding payments cannot be ignored while determining the income arising therefrom. The cash receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- less the corresponding cash payments of Rs.3,43,42,247/- result in a net difference of Rs.11,17,053/-. 58.6. In our considered view, the Revenue cannot consider the receipts appearing in the seized material while disregarding the corresponding payments appearing in the same material. It is a settled law that what can be taxed under the Income Tax Act is the income and not gross receipts. The income arising from the transactions can, therefore, be considered only to the extent of the net difference of Rs.11,17,053/-. Accordingly, the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) at Rs.65,97,101/- is restricted to Rs.11,17,053/- Page 56 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. and the balance amount of Rs.54,80,048/- is deleted. Ground No. 4 is partly allowed. 59. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1524/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is partly allowed. 60. We now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2788/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2018-19. 61. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are directed against the deletion of Rs.1,80,33,537/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,11,58,512/- made by the AO on account of alleged unaccounted scrap sales. 61.1. The AO had made the addition of Rs.2,11,58,512/- on the basis of statements of Shri Satya Vijay Singh, Shri Md. Taleem, Shri Yogendra Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar Bhaiya and Shri Suresh Kumar Ghorawat, together with the data found in the pen drive of Shri Kailash Kumar Pareek. The AO proceeded on the basis that the scrap sales were being under-invoiced and, on that basis, estimated the alleged unaccounted scrap sales over a period of several financial years. The pen drive, however, contained specific details of unaccounted scrap sales for the period July 2017 to November 2017, along with production data for other periods. 61.2. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the material on record, accepted that the pen drive contained specific data relating to the period July 2017 to November 2017 and held that there was no basis for extrapolating the unaccounted scrap sales reflected therein to the entire period. The Ld. CIT(A) also examined the computation made by the AO and found material errors in the manner in which the scrap sales had been quantified, particularly in respect of C-grade scrap. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.31,24,975/- and deleted the balance addition of Rs 1,80,33,537/-.

Page 57 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 61.3. The Ld. DR submitted that the statements recorded during the search, read with the seized digital material and the other material considered by the AO, established suppression of scrap sales and that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the balance addition. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the AO had extrapolated the data relating to a specific period to other periods without any material showing that similar unaccounted sales had taken place throughout the entire period. It was further submitted that the computation adopted by the AO was itself materially defective. 61.4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have already examined the issue of alleged unaccounted scrap sales while adjudicating Ground No. 3 of the assessee. While deciding the said ground, we have upheld the sustenance of Rs.31,24,975/- by the Ld. CIT(A)on the ground that the said amount was arrived on the basis of data found from the pen drive found from the possession of an employee 61.5. As regards the balance addition of Rs. 1,80,33,537/- challenged by the Revenue, we find that the primary digital material relied upon by the AO covered only the period July 2017 to November 2017, whereas the AO extrapolated the alleged suppression to a substantially larger period. Further, the methodology adopted by the AO for quantification was found to suffer from material errors, as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). The statements relied upon by the Revenue may indicate an allegation of under-invoicing or clandestine sale of scrap, but they do not by themselves establish the precise quantum of Rs. 1,80,33,537/- sought to be restored by the Revenue.

Page 58 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 61.6. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the deletion of Rs. 1,80,33,537/- made by the Ld. CIT(A). Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 62. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are directed against the deletion of the addition of Rs.77,03,687/- pertaining to unaccounted cash receipts, non-invocation of section 69A in respect of cash of Rs.3,54,59,300/- found to be unrecorded in the books of account, and application of the peak-credit theory in respect of the alleged unaccounted business receipts of Rs.1,43,00,788/-, respectively. 62.1. The AO, on the basis of the ledger of AA Enterprises found during the search, noted cash receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- and cash payments of Rs.3,43,42,247/- during F.Y. 2017-18. The AO treated the higher figure of Rs.3,54,59,300/- as unaccounted business receipts and, after telescoping Rs.2,11,58,512/- against the alleged unaccounted scrap-sale addition, made a net addition of Rs.1,43,00,788/-. The AO relied upon the statements of Shri Anil Kumar Bhaiya and Shri Suresh Kumar Ghorawat regarding the nature of the cash transactions. 62.2. The Ld. CIT(A), while considering the assessee’s appeal, examined the same seized ledger and applied the peak-credit theory. The peak credit in respect of the cash transactions was determined at Rs.97,22,076/-. After reducing the scrap-sale addition of Rs.31,24,975/-, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs.65,97,101/- and deleted the balance amount of Rs.77,03,687/-. 62.3. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting Rs.77,03,687/- and in applying the peak-credit theory without establishing the generation and source of the cash. It was further submitted that the cash receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- constituted unexplained money liable to be assessed under section 69A of the Page 59 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the seized ledger contained both receipts and payments and that the Revenue could not selectively rely upon the receipts while ignoring the corresponding payments. 62.4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. We have already adjudicated the corresponding issue while deciding Ground No. 4(revised) of the assessee’s appeal. We have found that the seized material has to be considered as a whole and that the cash receipts cannot be considered in isolation while ignoring the corresponding payments recorded in the same material. The AO himself had recorded that the cash receipt was Rs.3,54,59,300/- and the cash expense was Rs.3,43,42,247/-. 62.5. We have further held that the difference between the cash receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- and cash payments of Rs.3,43,42,247/- comes to Rs.11,17,053/- and that the income arising from such transactions can be considered only to that extent. Accordingly, while adjudicating the assessee’s Ground No. 4, the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) at Rs.65,97,101/- has already been restricted to Rs.11,17,053/- and the balance has been deleted. 62.6. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Revenue’s challenge against deletion of Rs.77,03,687/- does not survive. Likewise, there is no basis for treating the gross cash receipts of Rs.3,54,59,300/- as unexplained money under section 69A when the corresponding cash payments are appearing in the very same seized material and the transactions have been considered as business transactions. The Revenue has also not brought any independent material to establish that the entire gross receipts represented unexplained money and was liable to be taxed

Page 60 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 62.7. Accordingly, in view of the above and our findings already recorded while adjudicating the Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal, Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 63. Ground No. 6 is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the submissions of the assessee without conducting further enquiry under section 250(4) of the Act or directing the AO to conduct such enquiry. 63.1. We have already dealt with this issue while adjudicating Ground No. 8 of the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2017–18 in ITA No. 2761/KOL/2025. The findings rendered therein apply mutatis mutandis to the present ground as well. 63.2. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 64. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2788/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is dismissed. AY: 2019-20 ITA No. 1525/KOL/2025 & ITA No. 2789/KOL/2025

Page 61 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 67. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019- 20 in ITA No. 1525/KOL/2025 is partly allowed. 68. We now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2789/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2019-20. 69. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are interconnected and relate to the deletion of the addition of ₹2,64,72,087/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash receipts, non-invocation of section 69A and application of the peak-credit theory. The Ld. AO, on the basis of the ledger of AA Enterprises and the statements recorded during the search, noted cash receipts of ₹2,64,72,087/- and cash payments of ₹2,27,87,025/- and treated the entire cash receipts of ₹2,64,72,087/- as unaccounted business receipts. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not sustain the addition on the gross cash receipts and applied the principle of peak credit, taking into consideration the cash payments appearing in the same ledger and the peak of ₹13,15,664/- in comparison with peak consideration in the earlier year. 69.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. We find that the same ledger contains both cash receipts and cash payments and, therefore, the cash receipts cannot be considered in isolation without taking into account the corresponding cash payments appearing in the very same ledger. The total cash receipts during the year are ₹2,64,72,087/- as against cash payments of ₹2,27,87,025/-. Accordingly, following the principle already adopted by us while adjudicating the similar issue in A.Y. 2018-19, the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of the gross cash receipts. The net difference between the cash receipts and cash payments works out to ₹36,85,062/-. Accordingly, the order of

Page 62 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. CIT(A) is modified and addition of ₹36,85,062/- is sustained as against Rs 13,15,664/- sustained by Ld. CIT(A). 69.2. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. 70. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2019- 20 in ITA No. 2789/KOL/2025 is partly allowed. AY: 2020-21 ITA No. 1526/KOL/2025 & ITA No. 2740/KOL/2025

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. for the period July 2017 to November 2017 and thereafter estimated the alleged unaccounted scrap sale for the relevant assessment year. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the material, accepted that the pen drive contained unaccounted scrap sale data only for the period July 2017 to November 2017, whereas the production data therein covered several financial years. The Ld. CIT(A) further found that the estimation for the entire production was without basis and that the computation of C-grade scrap involved substantial excess estimation. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition of ₹3,01,28,896/-. 75.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. We find that the very basis of the addition is an extrapolation of specific data pertaining to July 2017 to November 2017 to the entire year under consideration, coupled with an estimation which, as demonstrated by the Ld. CIT(A), resulted in substantial excess computation. No specific material relatable to the year under consideration has been brought on record by the Revenue to justify the impugned addition. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹3,01,28,896/-. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 76. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the submissions of the assessee without conducting further enquiry under section 250(4) of the Act. 76.1. We have already dealt with this issue while adjudicating Ground No. 8 of the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2017–18 in ITA No. 2761/KOL/2025. The findings rendered therein apply mutatis mutandis to the present ground as well. 76.2. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

Page 64 of 65

ITA Nos. 1520 to 1527, 2738 to 2740 & 2697/Kol/2025 ITA Nos. 2757, 2759 to 2761, 2788 to 2789/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 77. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2020- 21 in ITA No. 2740/KOL/2025 is dismissed. AY: 2021-22 ITA No. 1527/KOL/2025 78. We now take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1527/KOL/2025 for assessment year 2021-22. 79. Ground No. 1(Revised GOA) is directed against the disallowance of interest of ₹4,92,165/- on loans taken from Gleam. and Krishnasudha. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue is substantially identical to the issue considered by us in the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No 1523/Kol/2025. Following our findings recorded therein, the disallowance of interest of ₹4,92,165/- cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed. 80. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2021-22 in ITA No. 1527/KOL/2025 is allowed. 81. In the result, appeals of the assessee and Revenue are being disposed off as indicated above. Order pronounced on 30.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.10.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Sudip Digitally signed by Sudip Sarkar True Copy// Sarkar Date: 2026.10.30 15:59:52 +05'30'

Page 65 of 65