BEEGEEY REALTORS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA V. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

ITA 790/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Beegeey Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting the revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal CIT(Central)-2, Kolkata, concerning the assessment year 2021-22. The revision was based on discrepancies related to unsecured loans, construction expenses, and sundry creditors identified during a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal focused on the issues of unsecured loans and construction expenses, finding that the Assessing Officer had adequately examined these issues during the original assessment, and thus, the revision was not justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774236 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263; 132; 133(6); 139

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.790/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Beegeey Realtors Pvt. Ltd………….…………………………….……….……Appellant 1, British India Street, Dalhousie, W.B. - 700069. [PAN: AACCB3104F] vs. PCIT(Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT- DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 04, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 11, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.02.2025 of the Principal CIT(Central), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. PCIT”] exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act showing total income of Rs.1,710/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the cases of Raj Group & Others and the assessee being one of the persons/concerns related to Giridhari Lal Goenka, was also covered under the search and seizure operation and during the course of search and seizure operation, various incriminating materials/documents were found and seized. The return of income of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the case Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.790/Kol/2025 Beegeey Realtors Pvt. Ltd 2 was assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2022 at an assessed loss at Rs.1,710/-. The ld. PCIT by exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 has found following discrepancies: (i) issue related to unsecured loan, (ii) issue related to construction expenses and (iii) issue related to sundry creditors, 2.1 The ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act has found that it is a case of erroneous assessment and it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, a show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued and submission was filed by the assessee but the ld. PCIT after going over the submission set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make necessary verification/enquiry and pass a de novo assessment order. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The ld. AR in the course of argument did not press the issue related to sundry creditors and he raised issues related to unsecured loan and construction expenses. Regarding the issue of unsecured loan, the submission of the ld. AR is that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished documentary evidences such as source of fund, loan confirmation, copy of bank statement, audited financial statement and ITR acknowledgement and not only that, the Assessing Officer had also issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and the same were duly complied. Accordingly, the ld. AR stated that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the aforesaid two issues are bad in law and are liable to be set aside. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.790/Kol/2025 Beegeey Realtors Pvt. Ltd 3 3.1 Regarding the issue of claim of construction expenses, the submission of the ld. AR is that the construction expenses of Rs.73,49,863/- was debited in year under consideration and transferred fully to the WIP which was reflected in the P & L A/c as change in inventory and the assessee has duly submitted the P & L A/c and ledger A/c. The ld. AR has submitted that the Assessing Officer had made enquiries regarding the said issue before passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the issue of claim of construction is not prejudice to the interest of the revenue which requires interference by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order. 5. Upon hearing the submissions of ld. counsels of the respective parties, we are going to decide only two issues i.e. unsecured loan taken as the assessee and construction expenses and the assessee did not press the issue regarding sundry creditors and on the issue of sundry creditors, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Now, looking into the facts of the case on the issue of unsecured loan, we find after going over the facts of the case that the assessee has taken loan of Rs.189.00 lakhs from the following parties: Name and Address of Party PAN Loan Taken Amount (Rs.) Net Worth of the Lendor(Rs.) Loan Repaid in AY Jajodia Finance Ltd 69A, Lenin Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kolkata 700013 AAACJ8457D 36,00,000 6005.89 Lakhs AY2021-22 JNB Sidhu Finance Pvt Ltd 69A, Lenin Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kolkata 700013 AABCJ0370Q 10,00,000 2,697.16 Lakhs AY 2021-22 Main Land Finance AACCM3533D 20,00,000 9927.83 A.Y 2023-24 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.790/Kol/2025 Beegeey Realtors Pvt. Ltd 4 Pvt. Ltd. 69A, Lenin Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kolkata 700013 Lakhs Sri Salasar Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. 69A, Lenin Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kol-13. AADCS8457R 23,00,000 2422.87 lakhs A.Y 2021-22 Topdeal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 69A, Lenin Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kol-13. AABCT0268R 100,00,000 2242.73 lakhs NA 5.1 We further find that he assessee has filed the copy of the source of fund, loan confirmation duly signed by the parties, copy of bank statement, audited financial statement, ITR acknowledgement before the Assessing Officer and not only that the Assessing Officer had also issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and the same were duly complied and the Assessing Officer was duly satisfied with the transaction and then accepted the same. It is further pertinent to mention here that the Assessing Officer after going over the details and examination of the parties has found that majority of the loans has been repaid and thereafter, he assessed the income of the assessee. 6. Regarding the issue of claim of construction expenses, we find that the said construction expenses of Rs.73,49,863/- was debited in the year and transferred the same fully to the work-in-progress which was duly reflected in the P & L A/c as change in inventory. We also find that the assessee has duly submitted the P & L A/c and ledger A/c apparently showing the reflection of the expenses. We note that that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for the details in respect of the said claim and the Assessing Officer examined the purchase and work-in-progress and had made enquiries regarding the said issue before passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, we do Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.790/Kol/2025 Beegeey Realtors Pvt. Ltd 5 not find that the issue of claim of construction is prejudice to the interest of the revenue which and we uphold the order u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer on this issue. 7. Keeping in view the above discussion, we find that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the aforesaid two counts as the assessee has duly disclosed the entire thing before the Assessing Officer. Hence, the revision order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld. PCIT is set aside. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 11th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 11.09.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "