DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. CENTURY ALUMINIUM MFG COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar ChoubeyAssessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-13(1), Kolkata……….……………… …………….……….……Appellant vs. Century Aluminium MFG Company Ltd..…….………….......……...…..…..Respondent Raja Road, P.O. Sukchar, Barrackpur-II, 24 Parganas, W.B-700115.. [PAN: AABCC2200Q]
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated
03.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 25 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.
Century Aluminium MFG Company Ltd
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring a loss of (-) Rs.3,67,08,876/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of one Shri Beniprasad Lohotia who admitted providing accommodation entry whereby the assessee company is a beneficiary. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that a transaction was done with one M/s Shubh Suppliers Ltd for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the said lender company i.e. Shubh Suppliers Ltd did not respond to the notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act 1961, the Assessing Officer made addition for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the assessee has been allowed. 5. Being dissatisfied, the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: Century Aluminium MFG Company Ltd
3
6. Contrary to that, the ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee is in the business of aluminium products where material cost comprises of 90% of the sales price and due to various factors, during the year under consideration, the assessee faced liquidity crunch from time to time and approached to a money lending company for the same and the assessee obtained an interest bearing loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from M/s Shubh Suppliers Limited and incurred an interest expense of Rs.605,416/- subjected to TDS u/s 194A of the Act and the said loan was fully repaid during the year and also the unpaid interest was paid immediately in the next year. The ld. AR submits that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted all the relevant documents and the Assessing Officer accepted those documents and did not find any defect or discrepancy. The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer made the addition only on the failure of appearance of the lender company before him in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. His submission is that the assessee had taken loan from a said company namely M/s Shubh Suppliers Limited which was incorporated by taking registration under the Companies Act and has CIN number and has certificate of incorporation issued by