DCIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALUDECORE LAMINATION PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

I.T.A. No. 2758/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-2016)

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 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 revenue arise from orders dated 29.05.2025 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 2015-16.

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. entry and that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the nature and source of the credit. The Revenue has also challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A.) in deciding the appeal on the basis of the material available on record without directing any further inquiry under section 250(4) of the Act. 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue relate to the deletion of the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act and are therefore being adjudicated together. 3.1. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,16,44,190/-. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2021. The assessee filed its return of income in response to the said notice. Thereafter, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings. The assessment was ultimately completed on 30.03.2022 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. 3.2. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the credit of Rs.95,00,000/- appearing in the books of the assessee in the name of M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer referred to information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, relating to alleged accommodation-entry activities and alleged layering of funds through various entities, including M/s Tirumala Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of the information available with him, the Assessing Officer treated the impugned loan as an accommodation entry and alleged that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of such arrangement. The Assessing Officer accordingly examined whether the assessee had

Page 2 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. satisfactorily explained the identity and financial capacity of the lender and the genuineness and nature of the transaction. 3.3. The Assessing Officer observed that, according to him, the assessee had furnished only the loan confirmation and had not furnished the bank statement, income-tax acknowledgement and balance sheet of M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. According to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid documents were necessary for examining the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender and the transaction. On this basis, and having regard to the information received from the Investigation Wing concerning the alleged accommodation-entry activities of the entities involved, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs.95,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and made an addition of the said amount under section 68 of the Act. 3.4. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A.) and specifically disputed the factual premise adopted by the Assessing Officer regarding non-furnishing of documents. The assessee submitted that the bank statement, balance sheet and income-tax acknowledgement of M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. had in fact been furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also placed on record the loan confirmation, audited financial statements, income-tax particulars and bank records of the lender. Upon examination of the record, the Ld. CIT(A.) proceeded on the premises that the relevant documents relating to the lender and the impugned transaction had been furnished by the assessee. This fact could not be controverted by the Ld. DR. Thus, one of the factual premises on which the Assessing Officer proceeded, namely that the assessee had failed to furnish the relevant financial and tax particulars of the lender, was not borne out from the material considered in the appellate proceedings. The assessee further submitted before the Ld. CIT(A.) that M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Page 3 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. was not a new or unidentified creditor and that the same lender had advanced loans to the assessee in earlier assessment years. The assessee pointed out that the loans received from the same lender in Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been accepted in the regular assessments. The assessee further submitted that the said transactions had also been considered and accepted in the reassessment proceedings pursuant to search for those years. The assessee also placed reliance upon the fact that the funds available with M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. included its own share capital and share premium and that the relevant position had been accepted in the regular assessment of the lender for Assessment Year 2008- 09. The assessee relied upon these facts not as creating an absolute bar against examination of the impugned credit, but as relevant circumstances bearing upon the financial position of the lender, the history of transactions between the parties and the explanation furnished by the assessee concerning the impugned loan. It was further submitted that the loan under consideration was subsequently repaid by the assessee along with interest and that such repayment had taken place much before the reassessment proceedings were initiated. 3.5. After considering the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A.) deleted the addition of Rs.95,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A.) considered, inter alia, the documentary material relating to the lender and the impugned transaction, the earlier acceptance of loans received from the same lender, the financial position and source of funds of the lender and the subsequent repayment of the loan with interest. The Ld. CIT(A.) was of the view that the aforesaid circumstances were relevant while examining the explanation furnished by the assessee under section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A.) further held that the mere existence of information concerning alleged accommodation- Page 4 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. entry activities of the entities involved could not, without sufficient material connecting such activities with the particular credit recorded in the books of the assessee, by itself establish that the amount represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. The Ld. CIT(A.) also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), as considered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Sreeleathers Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435 (Calcutta), concerning the evidentiary circumstances relevant for examining unsecured loan transactions. 3.6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The starting point of the Revenue's case is the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, concerning alleged accommodation-entry activities involving the entities referred to in the assessment proceedings. The information was relied upon by the Assessing Officer in examining the credit of Rs.95,00,000/- appearing in the books of the assessee in the name of M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. The allegation of the Revenue is essentially that M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and connected/intermediary entities, including M/s Tirumala Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., were involved in providing accommodation entries and that the assessee had obtained such an entry in the guise of an unsecured loan. The Assessing Officer also proceeded on the premise that the assessee had failed to furnish certain documents concerning the lender. However, as noted above, the Ld. CIT(A.) examined and considered therecord and proceeded on the basis that the relevant bank statement, balance sheet, income-tax particulars and other documents concerning the lender had been furnished to the A.O. Therefore, the question which arises for our consideration is not merely whether there existed information concerning alleged Page 5 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. accommodation-entry activities of the entities involved. The material question is whether, after considering the Investigation Wing information together with the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and the other material available on record, the Revenue has established that the specific credit of Rs.95,00,000/- received by this assessee from M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. This distinction is material because the allegation concerning the general character or activities of a lender or connected entity and the proof concerning the nature of a particular transaction are matters which have to be examined on the basis of the evidence available in respect of that particular transaction. 3.7. The decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Sreeleathers Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435 (Calcutta) is relevant in this regard. The Hon'ble High Court, while considering an issue relating to section 68 and unsecured loan transactions, examined the documentary material furnished in relation to the creditor and the relevant transactions and the material relied upon by the Revenue. The decision is relevant to the evidentiary approach to be adopted where documentary material relating to a particular creditor and a particular transaction is available. Such evidence has to be evaluated in its factual context and along with the other material available on record. The principle which emerges for the present purpose is not that a documentary explanation furnished by an assessee can never be rejected. Rather, the documentary material must be considered on its evidentiary value and, if the Revenue relies upon adverse material concerning the creditor or connected entities, the effect of such adverse material has to be examined in relation to the particular transaction under consideration. In the present case, therefore, the material concerning M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd Page 6 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. has to be evaluated along with the documents concerning the particular loan of Rs.95,00,000/-. 3.8. A similar evidentiary approach is reflected in the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat). In that case, the Court considered the circumstances in which the assessee had furnished particulars of the creditors and the relevant loan transactions and the transactions were carried out through account-payee banking channels. The decision is relevant for considering the identity of the creditors and the documentary and banking evidence relating to the transactions. Likewise, in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati), the Hon'ble Court considered the respective evidentiary responsibilities of the assessee and the Assessing Officer while examining a credit under section 68. These authorities do not mean that an assessee is automatically entitled to deletion of an addition merely by producing a confirmation or bank statement. The ultimate issue remains whether the explanation furnished by the assessee, considered together with the material brought by the Revenue, satisfactorily explains the nature of the credit. In the present case, the significance of these authorities lies in the requirement that the documents furnished by the assessee concerning the identified lender and the particular loan transaction have to be considered along with the adverse material relied upon by the Revenue before the credit can be treated as unexplained. 3.9. The same approach is also relevant while considering the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT-2, Kolkata v. Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Ltd., ITAT/133/2025, GA/2/2025, dated 05.08.2025. In that case, the Revenue had challenged the Tribunal's order in a matter relating to an unsecured loan and had relied, among other things, upon a statement made by a director of the Page 7 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. lender company. The assessee had sought cross-examination. The Tribunal considered the documents relating to the lender and the transaction and recorded factual findings. The Hon'ble High Court, after considering the findings recorded by the Tribunal, found no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, requiring interference under section 260A of the Act. The decision is relevant to the extent that adverse material, including a statement concerning a lender or connected entity, has to be examined in the factual context of the particular transaction and along with the other evidence available on record. In the present case, the Revenue has relied upon information concerning the alleged activities of the entities involved. However, the material placed before us does not establish how that information, when tested against the documentary material concerning the specific loan received by the assessee, establishes that the sum of Rs.95,00,000/- represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. 3.10. We also find it relevant that the same lender, M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd., had advanced loans to the assessee in earlier assessment years and that those transactions had been accepted. We again clarify that such earlier acceptance does not mean that the Revenue is precluded from examining a subsequent transaction. Each assessment year and each credit is required to be examined on its own facts. Nevertheless, previous transactions involving the same lender and the same assessee constitute relevant factual circumstances. They are particularly relevant where the Revenue alleges that the lender itself was merely a fictitious or non-existent entity. In the present case, the lender was identifiable, had financial and tax records and had previously entered into loan transactions with the assessee which had been considered by the Department. The assessee had also placed on record material showing that the Page 8 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. lender's own funds included share capital and share premium and that the relevant position had been accepted in the lender's assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09. This earlier departmental treatment is not being regarded as conclusive of the impugned transaction. It is, however, a relevant circumstance which has to be weighed along with the other material. If the Revenue had brought on record reliable material showing that, notwithstanding these circumstances, the particular loan of Rs.95,00,000/- was an accommodation entry obtained by the assessee by introducing its own undisclosed money, such material would have required consideration and could have displaced the documentary circumstances relied upon by the assessee. However, no sufficient transaction-specific material of such nature has been demonstrated before us. 3.11. We also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 313 (Calcutta). The said decision is relevant to the evidentiary approach where an addition is sought to be made on the basis of an alleged accommodation-entry arrangement. The material relied upon by the Revenue has to be examined in relation to the transaction under consideration. In the present case, we have examined the material relating to the lender, the loan confirmation, financial and tax particulars, banking records, previous transactions between the parties and the subsequent repayment, along with the Investigation Wing material relied upon by the Revenue. On such examination, we find that the Revenue has not brought on record sufficient transaction-specific material establishing that the assessee's own undisclosed money was introduced in the books in the form of the impugned loan.

Page 9 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. 3.12. The decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT-2, Kolkata v. M/s Narayan Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., ITAT/76/2025, GA/1/2025, dated 10.06.2025, is also relevant. In that case, the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition under section 68 relating to advances received from parties. The appellate authorities considered the documentary evidence, confirmations received from the concerned parties pursuant to notices under section 133(6), and the subsequent refund of the amounts. The Assessing Officer had also relied upon a statement made by a third party, which was subsequently retracted. The Hon'ble High Court found no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising from the factual findings of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision illustrates that the evidentiary value of a third-party statement or an allegation concerning accommodation-entry activities has to be assessed along with the other material relating to the particular transaction. In the present case, the Revenue has not demonstrated sufficient supporting material establishing that the specific credit of Rs.95,00,000/- represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. 3.13. The assessee had furnished material establishing the identity and financial particulars of the lender, the receipt of the loan through banking channels and subsequent repayment with interest. The assessee had also placed before the appellate authority material concerning the lender's financial position, its tax records and the earlier transactions between the same lender and the assessee. Such material constituted relevant evidence in support of the explanation furnished under section 68. Once such material was available on record, the same was required to be considered together with the adverse material relied upon by the Revenue. We are not proceeding on the basis that the filing of such documents automatically Page 10 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. discharged every possible burden in every case. Rather, we have examined the material as a whole. Upon such examination, we find that the Revenue has not brought on record sufficient contrary evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, having a sufficient nexus with the particular transaction, to establish either that the apparent loan transaction was not the real transaction or that the amount represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. 3.14. In view of the above discussion, we find that the Revenue has failed to establish, through reliable and transaction-specific material, that the loan of Rs.95,00,000/- received by the assessee from M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. The documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, including the material relating to the identity and financial particulars of the lender, the banking records, the financial and tax records of the lender, the earlier transactions between the parties and the subsequent repayment of the loan with interest, has been considered by the Ld. CIT(A.) and by us. The Revenue's Investigation Wing material and the allegations concerning M/s Tirumala Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. have also been considered. However, the material relied upon by the Revenue does not, on the record before us, sufficiently establish the further factual proposition that the particular loan of Rs.95,00,000/- represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. The mere fact that an entity is alleged to have been involved in accommodation- entry activities in other transactions cannot, without sufficient supporting material relating to the particular transaction under consideration, conclusively determine the character of every transaction undertaken through such entity. Likewise, the mere existence of a banking transaction cannot by itself establish genuineness. The conclusion in the present case is reached after Page 11 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. considering the entire evidentiary record. Accordingly, on the facts and material available before us, the Revenue has not established that the specific loan transaction of Rs.95,00,000/- was an accommodation entry representing the assessee's own undisclosed money. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A.) deleting the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 4. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is directed against the action of the Ld. CIT(A.) in accepting the submissions of the assessee without conducting further inquiry under section 250(4) of the Act. 4.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Section 250(4) of the Act empowers the appellate authority to make, or direct the Assessing Officer to make, such further inquiry as may be necessary for disposing of an appeal. The existence of such statutory power does not mean that further inquiry is mandatory in every appeal irrespective of the material already available on record. The necessity for further inquiry has to be determined having regard to the facts of the particular case, the nature of the dispute, the evidence already available and the specific factual or evidentiary deficiency, if any, which requires further verification for proper disposal of the appeal. The mere fact that the appellate authority reaches a conclusion different from that of the Assessing Officer does not, by itself, establish that further inquiry under section 250(4) was mandatory. At the same time, this is not to be understood as holding that the Ld. CIT(A.) has no duty to make further inquiry where the material already available is insufficient for adjudication. The statutory power has to be exercised where further inquiry is genuinely necessary for disposing of the appeal. The question in the present case, therefore, is whether the Revenue has Page 12 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. identified any specific deficiency in the existing record which made further inquiry necessary for determining the nature of the Rs.95,00,000/- credit. 4.2. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A.) considered the assessment order, the submissions of the assessee, the documentary evidence concerning M/s Surichi Distributors Pvt. Ltd., the lender's financial and tax particulars, the earlier transactions between the lender and the assessee, the material concerning the source of funds of the lender and the subsequent repayment of the loan with interest. The Revenue has not identified any specific document or factual aspect which was available before the Ld. CIT(A.) but remained incapable of being evaluated and which, if subjected to further inquiry, would establish that the impugned loan represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. The Revenue has also not demonstrated that any particular material relied upon by the assessee was incapable of verification or that a specific inquiry, if conducted, would necessarily or reasonably have altered the evidentiary position concerning the impugned credit. The grievance of the Revenue is essentially that the Ld. CIT(A.) should have conducted further inquiry because the Assessing Officer had reached a different conclusion. That circumstance alone cannot make further inquiry mandatory. 4.3. It is also material that the dispute before the Ld. CIT(A.) was not founded upon the complete absence of any documentary evidence concerning the lender. On the contrary, the appellate record contained the lender's identity and income-tax particulars, financial statements, bank statement, loan confirmation and other relevant documents. The Ld. CIT(A.) considered those materials and also considered the Revenue's allegation concerning the Investigation Wing information. The Revenue has not identified any specific factual issue which remained unresolved and which was necessary to be Page 13 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. verified for determining whether the impugned credit represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. A further inquiry cannot be insisted upon merely as a matter of form where the appellate authority has examined the material already available and has recorded findings on the substantive issue. Section 250(4) requires such further inquiry as may be necessary for disposing of the appeal; it does not require a roving or open-ended investigation in every case where one party disagrees with the conclusion reached by the appellate authority. 4.4. We have already examined the substantive issue while adjudicating Ground Nos. 1 and 2 hereinabove. We have found that the assessee had placed relevant documentary material concerning the lender and the impugned transaction on record and that the Revenue had not brought sufficient transaction-specific material establishing that the loan of Rs.95,00,000/- represented the assessee's own undisclosed money. The Revenue has not identified any specific further inquiry which was necessary for determining the nature of the impugned credit and which was omitted by the Ld. CIT(A.) despite being necessary for adjudication. Nor has the Revenue demonstrated how the absence of such further inquiry rendered the findings of the Ld. CIT(A.) incapable of being arrived at on the basis of the existing record. The Revenue's objection is therefore essentially to the conclusion reached by the Ld. CIT(A.) on the evidence, rather than to the absence of some specific inquiry which was indispensable for adjudication. 4.5. Accordingly, having regard to the material available on the appellate record, the documents furnished by the assessee, the material relied upon by the Revenue and the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A.), we find no infirmity in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A.) to adjudicate the appeal on the material available before it. We therefore find no Page 14 of 15

ITA No. 2758/Kol/2025 M/s Aludecor Lamination Pvt. Ltd. merit in Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue. Ground No. 3 is accordingly dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 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