DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double taxation as the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

purchases was to be added to income of assessee. 10. With regard to the allegation of the CIT in the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act that the Assessing Officer did not examine the applicability of section 69C of the Act and did not make addition of the whole amount of alleged bogus

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BHAWARLAL ALOKE KUMAR , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cicle-34, V/S. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Aayakar Poorva, 7Th P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 4Th Floor, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkatka-107 Kolkta-700001 [Pan No.Aadfb 0620 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee‘S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed In Case No.224/Cit(A)-10/C-34/14-15/16-17/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest Despite The Registry Having Sent An Rpad Notice. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Cit(A)’S Action Partly Upholding Assessing Officer’S Findings Disallowing Assessee’S Purchase(S) Of ₹3,22,28,000/- Only To The Extent Of 15% Vide Impugned Following Detailed Discussion:- “06. Findings &. Decision:

10 DTR (Jp. Trib.) 0281 "11. ----------Undisputedly, it is not a/ways within the control of a purchaser to produce the suppliers before the AO to establish the genuineness of claim of purchases. What is expected from a prudent purchaser to establish genuineness of claim of purchases is furnishing of purchase bill containing al! the necessary details of the transaction, payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By : S/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

10 of the assessment order.\nFurther, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading\naccount, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this\nexercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can\nbe inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to\ndouble taxation as the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\Nvs.\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\N:\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing:\N01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly Identical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No. 1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

10 of the assessment order.\nFurther, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading\naccount, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this\nexercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can\nbe inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to\ndouble taxation as the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nvs.\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

10 of the assessment order.\nFurther, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading\naccount, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this\nexercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can\nbe inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to\ndouble taxation as the assessee

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10 of\nthe assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded\nfrom the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded.\nHence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it\ncan be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double\nPage 13\nBalmukund Lease

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10 of\nthe assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded\nfrom the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded.\nHence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it\ncan be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double\nPage 13\nBalmukund Lease

BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10 of\nthe assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded\nfrom the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded.\nHence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it\ncan be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double\nPage 13\nBalmukund Lease