DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BENTEC INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated
26.11.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata
[‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 186 days.
The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacture, trading and maintenance work of Energy Meters and other
Bentec India Ltd

2
electrical accessories. The original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.12.2016 and at the time of passing the assessment order the AO did not make any addition in respect of unsecured loan.
Subsequently, a Search and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) of Act was conducted at the residential premises of directors and office premises of Bentec Group of cases on 21.03.2018 and survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act was also conducted in respect of some business premises of this group and the assessee-company also covered under the Search and seizure operation. In course of search and seizure operation, no incriminating material was found. The A.O. issued notice u/s 153A directing the assessee to file return u/s 153A of the Act and in response to such notice, the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 19.08.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 1,17,20,770/- as was declared u/s 139 of the Act. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) were issued along with questionnaire and the assessee appeared to explain the return and submitted further documents which included hard copy of return, computation of income, audited accounts, apart from accounting details, clarifications etc. The A.O. completed the search assessment u/s 153A/143(3) determining the assessed income at Rs.
4,62,76,370/- by making the certain additions i.e. unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 in respect of bogus loans of Rs. 28,00,000/-, disallowance of expenses towards interest on TDS, penalty etc. Rs. 1,81,854/- and disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D Rs. 12,730/-.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the addition of bogus loans of Rs. 28,00,000/- and the disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D Rs.12,730/-.
5. Being dissatisfied, the revenue is in appeal before us challenging the very impugned order by raising the following grounds of appeal:
Bentec India Ltd

4
6.1
The ld. AR submits that the initial onus cast upon the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of unsecured loan was duly discharged by the assessee by furnishing the following documents in respect of all the loan parties:
a) Registered Address of the company.
b) PAN Details c) Copy of ITR Acknowledgement d) Copy of Audited Financial statements e) Copy of relevant Bank Statements f) Copy of Loan confirmation and source of funds.

5
7.1
We also find that the assessee furnished the following documents in respect of all the loan parties:
a) Registered Address of the company.
b) PAN Details c) Copy of ITR Acknowledgement d) Copy of Audited Financial statements e) Copy of relevant Bank Statements f) Copy of Loan confirmation and source of funds.
7.2
We further find that the loan creditors have enough net-worth to advance loan to the assessee company and the details are as under:
Name of Loan parties
Share
Capital,
Reserves
&
Surplus
Unsecured loan
(Rs.)
Hello Communication Pvt. Ltd.
179,039,411/-
10,00,000/-
Shree Balaji Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.
6,78,76,798/-
4,00,000/-
Good Hope Software Pvt. Ltd.
50,35,35,809/-
14,00,000/-
Total

28,00,000/-

6
Rs.28,00,000/- are bogus/sham transaction, especially in a case where assessment was already completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and nothing adverse was found in enquiry conducted in said assessment regarding the investment in loan. In view of the above discussions, it is held that addition of Rs.28,00,000/- on account of bogus unsecured loan is not sustainable in law and thus the same is deleted.”
7.4
In respect of disallowance of Rs.12,730/- u/s. 14A read with Rule
8D, we find that there was no dividend income and no separate expenses were incurred during the year and the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D does not apply in absence of any exempt income derived in the relevant previous year and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said disallowance of Rs.12,730/-.
7.5
Going over the above discussion and considering the facts of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the facts and after considering the various judicial pronouncements passed the impugned order in favour of the assessee on the above two issues. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Kolkata, the 17th December, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 17.12.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order