PALAK ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,RAJGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, SILIGURI

The ground no.1 is not pressed at the time of hearing, hence need no adjudication.

The issue raised in ground no.2 is against the order of learned CIT (A) upholding the addition of ₹26,07,801/- as made by the learned AO u/s 69C of the Act by treating the purchases from M/s Ultra Trade Mart as unexplained expenditure.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has purchased MS

The issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 3 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹2,21,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans.

The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has raised unsecured loans from 15 parties aggregating to ₹6,70,00,000/- details whereof is given by theAO in para 2.4 of assessment order. Accordingly, assessee was called upon to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. According to the ld. AO , the lenders were not filed of return. Thereafter, the assessee was issued show cause notice which was replied by the assessee vide letters dated 05.03.2024 and 11.03.2024. The assessee filed before us the copies of confirmations of loans, ITRs and bank accounts of the parties. According to the ld. AO, the assessee has not furnished the details in

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by upholding that the assessee has failed to discharge its ouns to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors and thus, justified the addition.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee inter alia has raised unsecured loans from five parties namely Budapest Traders, Emperor Marketing, Essence Dealmarks Pvt. Ltd., Megha Associates and VKS Jaiswal, aggregating to ₹2,21,00,000/-. The assessee filed before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) copies of ITRs, confirmation of accounts, bank statements etc. the copies of which are available from page no.52 to 76 of the Paper Book. The assessee also submitted that it had filed the written submissions before the ld. CIT (A), a copies of which are attached at page no.102 to 110. The written submissions are dated 16.06.2025 and 23.06.2026. We note that the assessee has furnished before the ld. CIT (A), the ITRs, confirmations and bank statements, etc.in respect of these parties. However, authorities below have not pointed out any defect or deficiency in the same. The ld. CIT (A) has not pointed any defect or deficiency in the same. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) cannot be sustained on this issue. The case of the assessee find support from the decision in case of PCIT vs. Sreeleathers [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435 (Calcutta)/[2022] 448 ITR 332 (Calcutta)[14- 07-2022], wherein it has been held as under:-

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.