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

56,78,181/, it was submitted by the assessee that since the CENVAT Credit has already been credited in the books of accounts, the question of any ITA Nos. 1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025 Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 addition or disallowance did not arise. Moreover, the entire amount of Excise Dusty paid having

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 292C of the Act, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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 292C of the Act, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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 292C of the Act, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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 292C of the Act, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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 292C of the Act, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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 ]

section 69C of the Act are not mandatory and that Assessing Authority has full discretion either to add or not to add unexplained expenditure in income of assessee based upon sound judicial principles . 19. The other submissions made before the CIT were reiterated. 20. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT. According

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.

56,78,181/, it was submitted by the assessee that since the CENVAT\nCredit has already been credited in the books of accounts, the question of any\nPage 5\nITA Nos.1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025\nBalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19\naddition or disallowance did not arise. Moreover, the entire amount of Excise\nDusty paid

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.

56,78,181/, it was submitted by the assessee that since the CENVAT\nCredit has already been credited in the books of accounts, the question of any\nPage 5\nITA Nos.1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025\nBalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19\naddition or disallowance did not arise. Moreover, the entire amount of Excise\nDusty paid

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.

56,78,181/, it was submitted by the assessee that since the CENVAT\nCredit has already been credited in the books of accounts, the question of any\nPage 5\nITA Nos.1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025\nBalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19\naddition or disallowance did not arise. Moreover, the entire amount of Excise\nDusty paid

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect