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

E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Theseare 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. 2. As the facts and issues in all the appeals of Revenue are exactly identical, hence

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

e.\n2,04,50,000/- Rs.83,00,000/-) for the subjected AY 2015-16 and those are not\nrecorded in the books of account of the assessee for the said year.\n6. 2. 2. However, the stand of the AO was also not accepted as when the assessee had\nhimself admitted the fact that these purported cash entries were related

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

e.\n2,04,50,000/- Rs.83,00,000/-) for the subjected AY 2015-16 and those are not\nrecorded in the books of account of the assessee for the said year.\n6. 2. 2. However, the stand of the AO was also not accepted as when the assessee had\nhimself admitted the fact that these purported cash entries were related

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition