PARSAN BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 36, , KOLKATA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 18.03.2025,
I.T.A. No.: 795/KOL/2025
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Parsan Brothers.
which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2017. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That your appellant submits that the Appeal Order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC is unwarranted, unlawful and against natural justice.
2. That the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,32,080/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer in the third re-assessment order passed u/s 143(3) / 147 dated 16.12.2019, made by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC without considering the Response to the notice issued u/s 250 of the Act, and considering as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C as were invoked during scrutiny assessment stages, is not based on facts & figures as your appellant has not made any purchase from the said supplier namely M/s
Kasturi Metal Trading Private Limited and hence the question of claiming such amount as an expenditure in its Profit & Loss Account does not arise.
Further, instead of verifying the list of Purchases already filed in the assessment records, the addition has been made without carrying out any independent enquiry and the Ld. AO made the addition u/s 69C based on surmises and on a report drawn by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Hence, it is prayed that the addition made u/s 69C be directed to be deleted [Relief Claimed - Deletion of Rs. 1,32,080/-].
3. That your appellant requests consideration of other three unwarranted additions by the first Assessing Authority in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,96,420/-, and Rs.49,84,104/-
(Rs.43,00,000/- + Rs.6,84,104/-), to your appellant's legitimate, genuine, justified and reconciled declared income of Rs.55,75,830/- and subsequent appeal orders confirming the said additions, may kindly be taken into consideration altogether, in this Honourable Bench for hearing altogether, appraise the facts on merit and give directives for further course of action in the instant appeal order. [Relief Claimed - Deletion of Rs.54,80,524/-].
4. That your appellant craves leave to urge, to add, to alter, to amend, to rescind or to adduce further Ground(s) of appeal on or before that date of appeal hearing.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the wholesale business of bonded goods and the original return of income
I.T.A. No.: 795/KOL/2025
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Parsan Brothers.
for A.Y. 2013-14 was filed showing total income of ₹55,75,830/-. The initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of ₹60,72,250/- vide order dated 25.01.2016. During the pendency of the appeal against the order, another notice u/s 148 was issued and the Total Income was re-assessed u/s 143(3) /147 at Rs.1,10,56,360/- on 08.12.2017. Being aggrieved with the said re- assessment order, the assessee filed another appeal on 13.01.2018
before the Ld. CIT(A) but during the pendency of the second Appeal
Petition before the Ld. CIT(A) another notice u/s 148 for reopening of the assessment order dated 08.12.2017 was issued on the ground that the assessee had booked bogus purchase from one M/s Kasturi Metal
Trading Private Limited (KMPL) amounting to Rs.1,32,080/-, which was believed to be Bogus Expenditure and the provisions of Section 69C were invoked and a sum of Rs.1,32,080/- was ultimately added to the already assessed Total Income of Rs.1,10,56,360/- as per re- assessment order dated 08.12.2017 and the total income was assessed at ₹1,11,88,440/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated
18.03.2025 dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld.
AO made the assessment order on the 3rd occasion. Initially, the assessment was made at the total income of ₹60,00,000/- as against the returned income of ₹55,00,000/- and the Ld. CIT(A) gave partial relief. Subsequently, reassessment was done and the income was enhanced to ₹1.10 Crore against which another appeal was filed, which I.T.A. No.: 795/KOL/2025
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Parsan Brothers.
is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). This is the 3rd assessment made in which addition has been made under section 69C for the purchases from KMPL. It was stated that the assessee is in the business of trading of foreign liquor, imports the same and also purchases from Indian companies from different states and sells to different hotels and restaurants. Our attention was drawn to paper book pages 4 to 7, which give the details of total purchases made from various suppliers and the purchases are mentioned at ₹11,22,84,577/-. The assessee has filed an affidavit at page 8 of the paper book in which it is stated that during the financial year 2012-13, the assessee had never purchased from KMPL.
It is further stated that neither Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh at 109,
Jaynarayan Babu Anand Dutta Lane, Howrah-711101 nor his manager
Sri Subrata Das is known to the assessee and they are not connected with the business of the assessee firm. The assessee has also enclosed the computation of income and the copy of audit report. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld but could not counter the denial of purchases made by the assessee from KMPL.
5. The assessee has further submitted as under:
“Purely based on the deposition of the said Sri Sanjiw Kumar Singh and his
Manager Sri Subrata Das, an addition has been made in the hands of your appellant without looking into the Books of Account and statements already filed by your appellant before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of earlier two assessment notices in order to verify whether your appellant has made any Purchase from the said party so as to treat it as Bogus Purchase.
Your appellant submits that no such verification was at all carried out as because if the same would have been done then Ld. Assessing Officer could have easily gathered the fact that there was no purchase of any goods from the said alleged Supplier namely M/s Kasturi Metal Trading Private Limited.
3. Your Appellant further states that entire party wise Purchase List has been filed before the Learned Assessing Officer and if verification of the said
I.T.A. No.: 795/KOL/2025
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Parsan Brothers.
Purchase List was being done then it would have been evident from the said list that no Purchase of any materials have been made from the said entity i.e.
M/s Kasturi Metals Trading Private Limited. Your Appellant states that if the assessment folder was consulted by the Learned Assessing Officer properly before issuance of notice u/s 148, then he could have easily ascertain the fact that there was no Unexplained Expenditure in the form of false Purchase booking in the Books of Account of your appellant. Instead of following such course of action simply based on an information received from the Investigation
Wing of the Department the notice u/s 148 was issued and also the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) /147 of the Act.
4. For your ready reference, your appellant encloses herewith the following statements / documents for your perusal:
a) A party wise statement of Purchases made during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 (Annexure "A").
b) An Affidavit sworn in by one of the Partner namely Sri Nirmal Kumar Parsan stating therein that there was no Purchase of goods from alleged party namely
M/s Kasturi Metals Trading Private Limited (Annexure "B").
c) Annual Audited Accounts for the Financial Year 2012-13 (Annexure "C").
Grounds taken to counter the allegations raised by Ld. CIT (A) & Ld. AO
Your appellant submits as follows:
1. That the addition of Rs.1,32,080/- made by Learned Assessing Officer as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C is not based on facts & figures as your appellant has not made any purchase from the said alleged supplier namely M/s Kasturi Metal Trading Private Limited and hence the question of claiming such amount as an expenditure in its Profit & Loss Account does not arise. Further, instead of verifying the list of Purchases already filed in the assessment records, the addition has been made without carrying out independent enquiry, the Ld. AO made the addition u/s 69C based on surmises and on a report drawn by Investigation Wing of the Department.
Hence, it is prayed that the addition being made u/s 69C be directed to be deleted [Relief Claimed - Deletion of Rs. 1,32,080/-].

[Rakesh Mishra]
Judicial Member

Accountant Member
Dated: 03.09.2025
Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)
I.T.A. No.: 795/KOL/2025
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Parsan Brothers.
Copy of the order forwarded to: