DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TAMANNA COMMOSALES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.03.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 10 days. The revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that the reasons mentioned in the said affidavit are reasonable. 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 a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in respect of 'Agarwal Group of cases' on 25.09:2020 and on subsequent dates. Being one of the group entities of the said group, the assessee was also covered under this search & seizure operation conducted on 25.09.2020. Subsequent to the search & Assessment Year: 2020-21

2
seizure operation, group cases were centralized to the Central Circle 4(3),
Kolkata and juri iction of the assessee was transferred to the charge of Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata for post search assessment proceedings.
Later, the assessee filed its original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 08.02.2022 declaring total income to Rs. 94,71,035/-. Being the year of the search, the return of the instant A.Y was selected for compulsory scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17.02.2022. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with details questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 22.02.2022. In reply to these notices, AR of the assessee appeared and furnished the details, submissions & explanations on entries found in seized/impounded materials. Considering the submission and fact & circumstances of the case, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act
31.03.2022 at assessed income of Rs. 1,51,67,435/-. From the assessment order, it is observed that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.56,96,400/- u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure for bogus purchase.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue of addition of Rs.56,96,400/-.
5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue filed the present appeal before us by taking following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.
CIT(A) - 27, Kolkata has erred in deleting the addition made u/s.69C of the Income-tax Act., 1961 amounting to Rs.92,48,695/-on account of unexplained expenses on bogus purchase.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.
CIT(A) -27, Kolkata has erred in deleting the addition made u/s.69C of the Income-tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs.92,48,695/- when the assessee had failed to disclose the actual facts of purchase and also not proved the actual movement of stock, corresponding sales entries were not provided
Assessment Year: 2020-21

3
in the sales account from whom purchases were made and also not disclosed in there ITR.
3. That the dept. craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at any time during the appeal proceedings.”
6. The ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee has not only discussed the facts and documents submitted by the assessee rather also discussed the various judicial pronouncements, hence the impugned order needs no interference. The ld. AR submits that the assessee company made import purchases from Ningbo Engineering
Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd and the same have been shown in the books of account. Copy of ledger account of the said party along with copy of invoices, bill of entry and bank statement for the payment made to the said party had also been submitted before the Assessing Officer and the payment details has been mentioned in the ledger. He further submits that the assessee filed so many documentary evidences before us which had already been filed before the lower authorities.
7. Upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties and perusing the impugned order, we find that the assessee made indigenous purchases (i) vide bill no. RAM21 dated 10.01.2019 for Rs.21,23,137/- in F.Y.2018-19, (ii) 4 purchases vide bills no. RAM 24 dt. 30.07.2019,
RAM30B dt. 15.11.2019, RAM30A dt. 06.12.2019 and RAM 31 dt.
24.01.2020 aggregating sum of Rs.92,48,695/- in F.Y.2019-20 and finally, (iii) 3 purchases vide bill no. RAM32 dt. 25.07.2020, RAM33
dt.25.08.2020 and RAM 34 dated 20.10.2020 aggregating sum of Rs.56,96,400/- in F.Y. 2020-21. The assessee filed the list of papers before us which are as follows:
1. Copy of purchase details for F.Y 2018-19 (A.Y 2019- 20)
2. Copy of sales details for F.Y 2018-19 (A.Y 2019-20)
3. Copy of ledger accounts of Ningbo Engineering
Assessment Year: 2020-21

4
4. Import & Export Co. Ltd. for F.Y 2018-19 (A.Y 2019-20)
5. Copy of invoice along with bill of lading, custom clearance documents for F.Y 2019-20 (A.Y 2020-21)
6. Copy of purchase details for F.Y 2019-20 (A.Y 2020-21)
7. Copy of invoice along with bill of lading, custom clearance documents for F.Y 2019-20 (A.Y 2020-21)
8. Copy of ledger accounts of Ningbo Engineering Import & Export Co. Ltd.
for F.Y 2019-20 (A.Y 2020-21)
9. Copy of bill of lading etc for A.Y 2021-22
10. Copy of Audited Accounts for F.Y 2018-19 (A.Y 2019-20)
11. Copy of Audited Accounts for the year ended 31.3.2020 (A.Y 2020-21)
12. Copy of Audited Accounts for the year ended 31.3.2021 (A.Y 2021-22)

5
a) Purchase vide Bill No. RAM/24 dtd 30.07.2019
b) Purchase vide Bill NO. RAM/30B dtd 15.11.2019
c) Purchase vide Bill NO. RAM/30A dtd 06.12.2019
d) Purchase vide Bill No. RAM/31 dtd 24.01.202
In this regard, the AO interpreted the word RAM as Rajesh Merchandise
Private Limited and viewed that the alleged purchases have been made from the Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and stated that the assessee has not disclosed these purchases into books of accounts and hence, treated the amount of Rs. 92,48,695/- (aggregate of all four purchase bills amount) as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.
7.2.2. In the course of appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted that the AO has wrongly presumed the prefix ‘RAM’ as Rajesh Auto
Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. whereas the said purchase bill pertains to the import purchase from M/s Nimgbo Engineering Import & Export Co. Ltd. In reply to the hearing notices, during the appellate proceeding the appellant also submitted the copy of relevant ledger, copy of all four invoices (dated
30.07.2019, 15.11.2019, 06.12.2019 & 14.12.2020) issued by the consignor M/s Nimgbo Engineering Import & Export Co. Ltd. having the name of the assessee (M/s Tamanna Commosales Pvt. Ltd.) in the column ofConsignee Name. It is also noticed that the acronyms ‘RAM24, RAM30B,
RAM30A & RAM31’ were inscribed in the said respective invoices and these described the ‘Inv No RAM24 & ‘S/C No RAM24’, RAM30B & ‘S/C
No RAM30B, RAM30A & ‘S/C No RAM30A and RAM31 & ‘S/C No RAM31’
respectively which indicates import purchases only. The appellant also submitted the copy of ‘Bill of Lading’ issued by ‘Orient Overseas Container
Line’ which happened to be the carrier of the said consignment. In its explanation, the appellant also submitted the copy of ‘Bill of entry for home consumption’ issued by the ‘Indian Customs EDI System- Imports’
wherein name & details of the assessee was found to be mentioned against the importer details. Further, on perusal of the P&L account for the instant AY, it is noticed that the assessee has also booked expenses on account of ‘Port clearing and handling charges’ & Custom duty.
7.2.3. In view of the above discussion and evidences as placed by the assessee in the course of appellate proceeding, it is the fact that the purchases (Voucher no.s RAM24, RAM30B, RAM30A & RAM31) mentioned in the relevant ledger belong to the import purchases made by the assessee in the period of AY 2020-21 from M/s Nimgbo Engineering
Import & Export Co. Ltd. Further, the AO could not bring any supporting evidence to prove that ‘RAM’ is acronym of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt.
Ltd. and the AO has not disputed the sales which have arisen of such purchases. As a result, the assessee explained that the purchases are accounted for properly in the books of account. Hence, no addition on this account is required. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 92,48,695/- is deleted and these grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.”
Assessment Year: 2020-21

6
7.2
Keeping in view the above discussion as well as going over the order of the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Kolkata, the 19th September, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 19.09.2025. RS

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

////
By order