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

section 68 of the Act Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would be resold to same parties in substance therefore the transaction was more in the nature

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

section 68 of the Act Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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

section 68 of the Act Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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

section 68 of the Act Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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

section 68 of the Act Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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

section 68 of the Act Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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:

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of Profits [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was engaged in ,business of trading in steel on wholesale basis - Assessing Officer having found that some of alleged suppliers of steel to assessee had not supplied steel to assessee but had only provided sale bills, held that purchases

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.

bogus purchases the assessee was covering the purchases made\nfrom the grey market which were purchased at lesser price. It would kindly be\nappreciated that the facts of the case in hand is that both the purchases and\nthe sale are fictitious, as such, it would gratuitously be appreciated that the\nPage 8\nITA Nos.1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025\nBalajee Mini

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.

bogus purchases the assessee was covering the purchases made\nfrom the grey market which were purchased at lesser price. It would kindly be\nappreciated that the facts of the case in hand is that both the purchases and\nthe sale are fictitious, as such, it would gratuitously be appreciated that the\nPage 8\nITA Nos.1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025\nBalajee Mini

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.

bogus purchases the assessee was covering the purchases made\nfrom the grey market which were purchased at lesser price. It would kindly be\nappreciated that the facts of the case in hand is that both the purchases and\nthe sale are fictitious, as such, it would gratuitously be appreciated that the\nPage 8\nITA Nos.1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025\nBalajee Mini

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

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

44 Vijay Proteins Ltd V/s. CIT also disallowed only portion of unverifiable\npurchases case in similar facts and circumstances. The Revenue has quoted this\ntribunal's co-ordinate bench's decision in (2015) 154 ITD 849/Kol Trib Debasish\nPage 18\nBanerjee Vs ITO disallowed the entire purchases on account of assessee's failure\nreconciling difference between purchases as debited

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND LEASE FIN PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage | 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant