Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8642 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-11-2022
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
14-09-2022
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
02-02-2021
Judgement Text
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] ी राजेश क ु मार लेखा सद य एवं ी संजय शमा या यक सद य के सम I.T.A. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 Assessment Years : 2015-16 &2016-17 ACIT, Circle-43, Kolkata Vs. Raj Kumar Saraf (PAN: AMAPS 6483 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ ) Respondent / ( यथ ) Date of Hearing / स ु नवाई क# त%थ 15.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement / आदेश उ(घोषणा क# त%थ 11.11.2022 For the Appellant / नधा .रती क# ओर से Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent / राज व क# ओर से Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These two appeals preferred by the revenue are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 08.09.2020 & 09.09.2020 for the Assessment years 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. 2. Though the Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation , however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C ) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic is to be excluded for the purpose of counting the 2 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf limitation period. In view of this, the appeal is treated as filed within the limitation period. 3. First we shall take up revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 24/Kol/2021 for AY 2015- 16. 4. The grounds raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit in respect of unsecured loans taken from various parties. The provision of Section 68 of the Act will attract only in the case no sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee unable to offer any plausible explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the AO, but the appellant has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. So, on the basis of the entire addition of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- is deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as on the cases of the case deleting the additions of Rs. 3,000/- made by AO being disallowance u/s 37 in respect of Donation and Subscription expenses. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as on the cases of the case deleting the additions of Rs. 31,602/- made by AO being disallowance of 15% of Telephone expenses and Motor Car Expenses. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, delete and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of instant appeal proceedings. 5. Issue raised in ground no. 1is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by AO u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 6. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 40,35,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in reply to the notices and questionnaire, appeared before the AO and furnished various details/documents as called for. The AO observed on the basis of evidences furnished by the assessee that the assessee had taken unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 4,24,14,567/ during the year. The AO analyzed the increase in unsecured loans, sundry creditors in the ratio of increase in sales the creditor and genuineness of the transaction 10 sundry creditors out of which the notices issued to 8 sundry creditors were r unserved. The details of the sundry c assessment order. The assessee addresses which were accordingly furnished 133(6) of the Act on the new address parties did not respond to the notices issued u/s 133(6) Traders, Sharma Impex, Radha Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter the AO ,after discussing the party the assessee as to the genuineness of these parties 4,97,94,095/- in respect of following parties 7. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after giving a clear findings of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- represented the unsecured loan 3 ITA No. idences furnished by the assessee that the assessee had taken unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 4,24,14,567/- beside increase in sundry creditors of Rs. 7,72,21,758/ . The AO analyzed the increase in unsecured loans, sundry creditors in ratio of increase in sales and in order to verify the identities, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act 10 sundry creditors out of which the notices issued to 8 sundry creditors were r unserved. The details of the sundry creditors is given at para 3 page 2 assessment order. The assessee again called upon by the AO to furnished the which were accordingly furnished and the AO again issued notices u/s on the new addresses but still no replies were received parties did not respond to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act Traders, Sharma Impex, Radha Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. and Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd. after discussing the party-wise details , rejected the contentions of as to the genuineness of these parties and made an addition of Rs. in respect of following parties as unexplained cash credit: appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee s of fact that out of said total amount of Rs. 4,97,94,095/ represented the unsecured loans received by the assessee from 6 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf idences furnished by the assessee that the assessee had taken unsecured loans sundry creditors of Rs. 7,72,21,758/- . The AO analyzed the increase in unsecured loans, sundry creditors in , creditworthiness of u/s 133(6) of the Act to 10 sundry creditors out of which the notices issued to 8 sundry creditors were returned reditors is given at para 3 page 2 of the called upon by the AO to furnished the correct issued notices u/s received. Finally four of the Act namely Royal Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd. , rejected the contentions of and made an addition of Rs. as unexplained cash credit: appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee fact that out of said total amount of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- received by the assessee from 6 4 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf parties whereas the remaining of Rs. 3,42,94,095/- was in respect of 8 business trade creditors. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed each and every party in detail in the appellate order after taking into account the submissions and contentions of the assessee and after giving detailed findings on each of the parties , deleted the addition by observing and holding as under: “During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16 under appeal (i.e. assessment year 2015-16), the appellant, who is an individual was engaged in the business of trading in Sarees. Grounds of Appeal No 1 and 2 pertain to the addition of and adding back of an amount of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- representing sundry creditors and loan creditors as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit by the A.O." It is observed that the AO has made a total addition of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 Act, out of which Rs. 1,55,00,000/- is in respect of six loan creditors and the balance of Rs. 3,42,94,095/-is in respect of eight business creditors / Trade creditors. The addition made by the A.O. is mainly on the ground that the identity/creditworthiness .of loan creditors and genuineness of the transactions could not be established by the appellant beyond doubt. A perusal of the assessment order and written submissions along with the paper book containing pages 1 to 197 filed by the appellant shows that the addition for loan creditors were on the ground of non-availability of creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the loan transactions. Out of the total six loan creditors amounting to Rs. 1,55,00,000/- there are two individual loan creditors and four corporate loan creditors. The details are as under: Name of Loan Creditor Amounts 1. Smt. Srikanta Somani Rs. 15,00,000/- 2. Smt. Madhu Kanta Somani Rs. 15,00,000/- 3. Akriti Finance Management Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 25,00,000/- 4. Jodhani Management Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 50,00,000/- 5. Hrishikesh Dealcom Rs. 25,00,000/- 6. Radha Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 25,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Furthermore, the AO also added a sum of Rs. 3,42,94,095/- in respect of following business creditors / Trade creditors on the ground of non-genuine business transactions and non- availability of-creditworthiness of the parties. Name of Trade Creditor Amounts 1. United Trading Company Rs. 53,04,970/- 2. Hari Om Enterprises Rs. 65,36,160/- 3. Royal Traders Rs. 49,72,500/- 4. Sharma Impex Rs. 55,94,760/- 5 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf 5. Rafikul Islam Rs. 5,06,775/- 6. Niharika Sarees Rs, 20,00,010/- 7. Laxmi Trading Company Rs. 56,85,940/- 8. Swastik Enterprises Rs. 36,92,980/- TOTAL Rs. 3,42,94,095/- I have carefully gone through the assessment order, observations of the A.O. and arguments and contentions of the appellant and the written submission along with paper book filed by the appellant containing the various documentary evidences in support of appellant’s claim.. It is relevant to discuss each addition made by the AO separately. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dataware Pvt Ltd(ITA No. 263 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011) wherein it was held that in case if the AO has doubt regarding the creditworthiness of the loan creditor, then the AO in turn had to seek report from the AO of the loan creditor and thereafter only draw adverse inference against the loan creditor. The relevant excerpt of the judgment is reproduced as under: “11.In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing Officer of the assesses cannot take the burden of assessing the profit & loss account of the party when admittedly the party himself is an income tax assessee. After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the party is assessed under the Act, the Assessing Officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the party as to the genuineness of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the Assessing officer of the party but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could not enter into the return of the party and brand the same as unworthy ofcredence. 12.So long it did not established that the return submitted by the party has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing officer of the assessee is bound4o accept the same as genuine when the identity of the party and the genuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established. ” The findings and observations in respect of each of the Loan Creditor are as under : 1. Smt. Srikanta Somani: - In the assessment order the AO has dealt with this party at pages 6 to 10. Being not satisfied with the reply filed by the party Is 133(6) of the Act, the AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act. The party appeared in response to summons u/s 131 wherein her statement under oath was recorded and the extracts of the statement written in Hindi is at pages 7 to 9 of the assessment order. In the statement although Smt. Srikanta Somani confirmed the granting of loan to the appellant but because of various other assertions made by her in her statement, the AO concluded that the loan was not genuine. The AO observed from the statement that she does not operate her bank account and she signed cheques when her husband asks her to. Her bank account was being operated by her husband and she does not know about the source of Rs. 15,00,000/- loan given by her to the appellant. Thus, the AO was of the opinion that the 6 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf transaction is a bogus unexplained credit and added back Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The AO at page 10 has observed that "The mere fact that the identity of the lender is established & payments are made by cheques does not mean they (' are genuine. If the lenders do not have the financial strength to lend such huge sums and if there is no explanation as to their relationship with the assessee, no collateral security and no agreement, the transactions have to be treated as bogus unexplained credits" Further, the AO observed that the party had a returned income of only Rs 77,150/-for the relevant assessment year and she was unable to explain the source of money in her bank account. It is seen from the submissions and details furnished that the appellant had taken . unsecured loans from Shrikanta Somani amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- for meeting the business exigencies and the loan was repaid during the relevant assessment year itself. It is also observed that the appellant had paid interest of Rs. 47,013/- including TDS of Rs. 4,701/- the AO has allowed the interest paid as genuine business expenditure. However the AO treated the principal amount as unexplained cash credit which is credit which is apparently inconsistent. From a perusal of/the paper-book- submitted during the course of appellate proceedings, running from page 76-85, it is seen Shrikanta Somani vide letter dated 02-11-2017 submitted before the AOconfirmed that she had advanced unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- and has received the entire amount along with ,the interest during the year. It is found that the entire loan was squared off during the assessment year only. It is also seen that the AO has not questioned the identity of the loan creditor since she appeared in response to summons u/s 131. I find that the AO is also not doubting the identity of Loan Creditor. Bank statement of the party as submitted before the AO is also forming part of paper book page 77 & 78. From the bank statement it is observed that there is no cash deposit in her account and it is observed that the loan creditor had advanced loan through cheque to the appellant on 18.12.2014 twice for Rs. 5,00,000/- each and again on 20.12.2014 another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given. All the loan payments were, through the banking channel and she had submitted her own bank statements evidencing the facts. It is also seen, that as per copies of bank pass book of the loan creditor there was sufficient balance in that account over the year to give loan. Further, at the end of the year i.e. on 31.03.2015, the closing balance in that a/c was Rs. 27,10,019/-. It is seen that the loan transaction was interest bearing & the loan creditor received interest also out of her loan advance which was offered to tax in her return of income. Therefore, the basic three ingredients namely identity, creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transaction are present. 7 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf Further, the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Dataware Pvt Ltd which is fully applicable here as the creditworthiness of loan party has to looked into by the AO of that party and not by the AO of the appellant. As far as the observations in the statement recorded is concerned it is observed that there was no denial of fact that money was given to appellant by the party which was repaid during the year along with interest.The observation of the AO that the loan creditor was tutored to accept that she had advanced loan to the appellant is without any evidence . The fact that party’s husband looks after her banking affairs cannot be said to have any bearing on appellant’s assessment. It is also found that the loan party in her statement has indeed mentioned that the appellant was known to her family business so it is not a transaction between strangers and when the principal sum along with interest was repaid the addition cannot be made in the hands of the appellant. The addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- is held tobe unjustified. The AO is also unable to prove that there was actually no loan transaction nor able to bring any evidence in record which can prove that the said loan creditor has . no creditworthiness The AO has failed "to bring pout any adverse material against the appellant and the loan party. Thus, the addition of AO is on the basis of mere doubt and suspicion and is without any concrete footing. Accordingly, the addition of Rs, 15,00,000/- made by the A.O.is thus deleted. 2. Smt. Madhu Kanta Somani: - In the assessment order, the AO has made addition of-Rs. 15,00,000/- on the grounds that in compliance to summon u/s 131 Smt. Madhu Kanta Somani submitted her bank statements, Balance Sheet, ITR; etc. The AO also stated that the. returned income of the loan party was only Rs 2,36,110/- and the party failed to appear before the AO. The AO observed that the payments made by cheques does not mean they are genuine and the lenders do not have the financial strength to lend such huge sum without any collateral security and agreement and treated the transaction as a bogus unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order and written submissions, it is observed that that AO has not questioned the identity of the loan creditor. It is seen that the loan creditor has a valid PAN and is filing regular IT Return. The AO is also satisfied with the identity of the loan creditor. From the bank statement of the loan creditor in theassessment order, it is observed that the said loan creditor advanced Rs. 5.00.000/- on 12.12.2014 and another sum, of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 16.12.2014 and again Rs. 5,00,000/- on the same date to the appellant through three separate cheques and all the transactions were made through banking channel. The source of such loan is also reflected in the same bank statement which is acknowledged by the AO. Regarding the credit worthiness of the loan creditor, it is seen from the bank statement that the loan creditor had sufficient balance all along the year and the closing balance as on 31.03.2015 was Rs. 53,13,720/-. Therefore, the observation of the A.O that the loan creditor “do not have the financial strength to lend such huge sums does not carry any weight when the AO is not in a 8 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf position to substantiate the allegation. . The appellant has also argued that in today’s financial market business loans are arranged by the specialised persons and there is no need for any relationship between the parties, it is seen from the submissions and details that the appellant had taken unsecured loans from Madhu Kanta Somani amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- for meeting the business exigencies although the loan was not repaid during the relevant assessment year it is observed that the appellant had paid interest of Rs. 47,835/- including TDS of Rs. 4,784/- and the AO has allowed the interest paid as genuine business expenditure.However, the AO treated the principal amount as unexplained cash credit which is an inconsistent and contradictory approach. Thus, the addition by the AO is only on the basis of doubt,suspicion and without any - supporting material. Accordingly, the addition of Rs, 15,00,000/- made by the A.O. is deleted. 3. Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd.:- In the assessment order the AO had discussed about this party and came to a conclusion that the loan amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- taken from Akriti Finance Pvt Ltd is unexplained in nature. The AO had alleged that reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act does not prove all the three criteria of identity, creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of transaction. It was also stated that the Departmental Inspector found that the company is a paper- company with no business activities taking place. The AO alleged that Rakesh Agarwal is a dummy director based upon statement of some entry operator-Abhishek Chokhani recorded by DDIT(Inv), Kolkata which has no connection with the appellant’s proceedings. Thus, the AO questioned the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the company and added Rs 25,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The findings of AO as in para 10 of the assessment order is as follows:- “The assessee has .........and ITR. Thereafter the AO embarked upon statement ofsome Abhishek Chokhani who is allegedly an entry operator and Rakesh Agarwal the director of Akriti Finance Limited was a dummy director. The statement of Abhishek Chokhani was recorded by DDIT(lnv), Kolkata on 09.12.2014 not in any connection with the appellant’s proceedings. The appellant has argued that It is not understood as to how the AO came to know about this statement and how this statement is in any way relevant to the appellant’s assessment proceedings. After going through the entire assessment statement of Mr Chokhani, there is no question in respect of the appellant, no nexus has been established by the AO or the DDIT(INV) between Abhishek Chokhani or Rakesh Agarwal with appellant. The appellant was not even confronted with this allegation or the statement relied upon by the AO. Thus, the statement of Abhishek Chokhani is not relevant to decide the nature of transaction with the appellant. After going through the written submissions and the response of the appellant on the AO’s observation I find that in the assessment order at page 13 the AO hasmade a table and mentioned the. observations of the inspectors report in respect of some parties. At serial number 1 against this party, it is mentioned that "Paper Company: No business activities taking place.” 9 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf During the assessment proceedings the party has responded to summons u/s 131 and also filed its reply u/s 133(6) of the Act. There is no finding by the AO or by the inspector that the party is not available at the given address. The appellant has strongly objected to the action of AO who has not confronted the Report of the Income Tax Inspector to the appellant in course of assessment proceedings by making an observation that inspectors report cannot be made available to the appellant as it is internal document of the department. It is observed thatthe appellant had submitted documentary evidences in paper-book running from pages 86-107. On a perusal of the evidences, it is seen that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is established beyond doubt vide NBFC Certificate issued by Reserve Bank of India, ITR, PAN, bank statements, loan confirmations, audited annual accounts etc. From the audited accounts it is seen that Akriti Finance bad gross revenue from operations at a sum of Rs. 1,10,37,917/- which included interest income of Rs. 83,55,052/- and Share trading revenue of Rs. 17,01,721/-. Thus, certainly the party cannot be said to be a paper entity as per the observation by the AO. The appellant has submitted various supporting documents which have not been questioned by the AO at all. Thus, in a way, the AO has accepted the genuineness of the transactions. It is also seen that the loan transactions were through banking channel and on the loan transaction interest of Rs.25,822/- was paid and TDS of Rs 2,582/-was also deducted. Thus, the appellant had effectively established all the three ingredients necessary for section 68 in its favour. Thus, the addition by the AO is arbitrary and whimsical and purely based on suspicion and surmises. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as loan from Akriti Finance Pvt Ltd is deleted. 4. Jodhani Management Pvt. Ltd.:- The nature of the addition in respect of this corporate loan creditor is identical to that of Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd.The AO has made an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The AO observed that the Director of the corporate loan creditor is a dummy director and said company is a paper company. The appellant has argued that this company is a Non-Banking Finance company registered with the Reserve Bank of India and also the appellant had paid interest amounting to Rs. 4,63,425/- on which TDS of RS.46,343/- has also been deducted. No disallowance has been made by the AO in respect of this interest, thus the action of AO is self-contradictory. However on perusal of the Profit and Loss account along with balance sheet of this party it is found that it has gross revenue from operation of Rs. 1,06,89,172/- which included interest income of Rs. 82,07,081/- and Sale of Shares amounting to Rs. 24,82,091/-. Accordingly this company cannot be stated to be a paper company as alleged by the AO. 10 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf On the basis of findings as mentioned in the case of Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd. at Sl. No. 3, the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by the AO is deleted. 5. Hrishikesh Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. :- In the case of this party also, similar to Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Jodhani Management Pvt. Ltd. the AO made addition of Rs. 25 Lakhs. As the discussion by the AO and addition by the AO is similar, no separate detailed discussion is made again. In this case the loan was refunded during the year itself. The appellant has paid interest amounting to Rs. 1,10,137/- and deducted TDS of Rs. 11,014/- which has been allowed by the AO as genuine business expenditure. On the same line of discussion of Akriti Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Jodhani Management Pvt. Ltd. the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the AO is deleted. 6. Radha Realtech Pvt. Ltd.:- In the assessment order, the AO has made addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the ground of non-genuinity of loan transactions and non-creditworthiness of the loan creditor. The AO made same discussion about the identity of the corporate loan creditor and ultimately the AO was satisfied with identity of the loan creditor. But the AO has not made any discussion about the fact as to how the AO came to the conclusion that the loan creditor has no creditworthiness and the loan transaction was not genuine one. Not only that the AO is also unable to bring any evidence/documents which can substantiate the addition. The AO also raised the point that as per ROC record the company is engaged in trading business and not in the business of giving loan. During the appellate proceedings, the A.R submitted a detailed paper book from pages 139-145. It is also observed in the case of this creditor that the corporate loan creditor has complied the with the notices of the A.O, and it has valid PAN and regularly filing its return of income and also that the loan transactions was through banking channel and interest amounting to Rs.2,37,740/- was paid by the appellant and proper TDS amounting to Rs.23,774/- was deducted, which has been allowed by the AO. Accordingly, there is no doubt about the identity of the loan creditor & genuineness of the loan transaction. Regarding creditworthiness - the corporate loan creditor has substantial share capital, reserves and surplus as per its balance sheet. Thus, the creditworthiness was properly proved. Regarding advance of loan to any party, there is no bar which prohibits any person or company to give loan to any other party in order to earn interest if it has sufficient funds at its disposal. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as loan from Radha Realtech Pvt. Ltd. made by the A.O. is deleted. In Ground of Appeal Number 1 and 2, the next issue pertains to 8 trade creditors as mentioned in the assessment order as well as in the written submissions of the AR of the appellant. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and in response to notice u/s 142(1), the appellant had, furnished complete details of purchases made as well as purchase creditors before the AO on 27.01.2017. 11 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf Copy of such reply is at pages 29-37 of the paper book. The copies of purchase bills were submitted before the AO as well as before the undersigned. The appellant has placed on decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kulwinder Singh reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 449 (P&H) wherein it was held that section 68 does not apply to sundry creditors. Similar view was taken at the decision of CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain reported in 205 CTR 444 (All). Further, it would be relevant to refer to the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Patna Tribunal in the case of Raghubar Singh vs. DCIT reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 187 (Patna - Trib.) wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has observed as under: “The issue in the instant case relates to the disallowance made by The Authorities Below on account of non-confirmation of the sundry creditors for which addition made by AO and subsequently confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) u/s. 68 of the Act. However, ld. AR before us has taken a plea that the sundry creditors are arising out of the purchase expenses claimed in return of income. Therefore, the provision of section 68 of the Act to the instant disallowance cannot be invoked. We find force in the agreement placed by Ld. AR that the provision of Sec. 68 of the Act are not applicable to the sundry creditors. The provisions of section 68 of the Act are applied to the cash credit which has not been explained by assessee. In the instant case sundry creditors are arising out of the purchases as claimed by assessee which have been duly accepted by the Authorities Below. We also find that the provision of Sec. 41(1) of the Act cannot also be invoked at the same time. It is because the liabilities shown by the assessee have not seized to exist in the books of account. However, it is the duty of the assessee to justify its transaction on the basis of evidence which in instant case, the assessee has failed to do so. Authorities Below have invoked the provision of Sec. 68 of the Act to tax the sundry creditors whereas the assessee is claiming that the aforesaid amount represents the trade creditors and therefore the provision of Sec. 68 of the Act cannot be applied” Further reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Allied Infra Suppliers, Ganjam vs. DCIT (ITA No. 481/CTK/2017, order dated 16-11- 2018) wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal observed as under: “The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors. The sundry credits have arisen out of transactions with the assessee of supply of goods or services and unless the AO proves that the goods or services were never supplied, he cannot make an addition on account sundry creditors. Keeping the above in view and the report of the AO, the addition of Rs. 4,42,82,877/- on account of sundry creditors is deleted." The findings regarding 8 parties from whom credit purchases were made by the appellant are discussed individually in the following paragraphs: The appellant has argued that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant had also submitted the bank statements of all the 8 trade creditors evidencing that the 12 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf entire purchase transactions - both purchase and payments to such credits was routed through the banking channel through RTGS/Account Payee Cheque. 7. United Trading Company: - In the assessment order, the AO has added back Rs 53,07,970/- which is purchase of trading goods- sarees on credit from United Trading Company. The AO stated that the departmental investigation shows that the company does not exist at the given address. The AO then analysed the appellant has shown purchase of goods worth Rs. 53,04,970/- from the party which has shown an income of Rs. 168,640/- only in its return of income and for a company with a turnover of less than 85 lacs (calculated by making backward integration assuming 2% profit which is Rs.1,68,640/-), giving a credit of Rs. 56 lacs is highly implausible. Thus, the AO opined that credit given to the appellant is 31.5 times more than the yearly income which is a gross deviation from any business norms and questioned the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor and added Rs 53,04,970/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidences like, Purchase Bills, challans, ITR, Bank statements, PAN, ledger accounts, etc to substantiate the claim. It is seen that the business creditor has valid PAN and filing its income tax return regularly and the subsequent payments were through banking channel and as per books of a/cs i.e. ledger A/c there is sale of Rs. 53,04,970/- to the appellant. So, the identity of the business creditor is beyond doubt". Again, returned income has nothing to do with credit lending capacity of the business concern, return income may be less due to many reasons i.e. interest expenditure and administrative expenditure etc. Furthermore, this is the complete prerogative and business understanding of a party about the fact that to whom it will lend credit or not. It is observed that the AO got field enquiry done through departmental inspector and the result of such enquiry is at page 13 of the assessment order wherein the AO has made a table and mentioned the observations of the Inspectors report in respect of all the parties. At serial number 5 against this party it is mentioned that “Always Locked’’. In my opinion if a premise is found locked that cannot be sole basis to come to conclusion that the party does not exist at the stated premises. During the assessment proceedings the party has filed its reply u/s 133(6) of the Act which is at page 146 of the paper book. The AR has strongly objected to the action of AO who has denied Inspectors report to the appellant in course of assessment proceedings by making an observation that inspectors report cannot be made available to the appellant as it is internal document of the department. It is observed that the appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of transaction with the AO and which is also filed before the undersigned in paper-book running from pages 146-143. On a perusal of the evidences, it is found that the evidences to justify purchases/ creditors are clearly established by the purchase bills, and the subsequent payments to the party through banking channels, the reply filed by the creditor u/s 133(6) of the Act along with enclosure such as copy of ledger account, ITR, confirmation etc. On the contrary the finding of the AO that the party is non-existent at the given address is contrary to inspectors report and the method adopted by the AO to derive the turnover of 13 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf the creditor by making arithmetical calculation is based purely on guesswork and without any basis. The most important fact to bear in mind is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales have been accepted as genuine, once the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which have not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also observed that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. I find from the Tax Audit Report at page 20 of the paper book that the gross profit of the appellant during the relevant assessment year is stated to be 7.31% as compared to 5.47% in immediately preceding assessment year. Similarly, the Net Profit percentage during the relevant assessment year is stated to be 0.96% as compared to 0.76% in the immediately preceding assessment year. Thus, the trading results are much better during the relevant assessment year as compared to the preceding assessment year and any disallowance with respect to trade creditor just on the basis of assumptions and conjectures is not justified. The application of section 68 as cash credit is bad in law in this case since the appellant has satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Such addition on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises is hereby deleted. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs 53,04,970/- u/s 68 made by the A.O. is deleted. 8. Hari Om Enterprise:- In the assessment order, the AO has added back sum of Rs 65,36,160/- representing entire purchases made by the appellant during the relevant assessment year from this party. The AO stated that the departmental investigation shows that the party does not exist at the given address. The AO then analysed the appellant has shown purchase of goods worth Rs. 65,36,160/- from the party out of which Rs. 49,13,160/- was the closing balance payable at the end of the relevant assessment year which has shown an income of Rs. 6,18,670/- only giving credit of Rs. 49,13,160/- is highly impossible. Thus, the AO opined that credit given to the appellant is 8 times more than the yearly income which is a gross deviation from any business norms and questioned the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor and added Rs 65,36,160/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidences like Purchase Bills, challans, ITR, Bank statements, PAN, ledger accounts, etc to substantiate the claim. It is seen that the business creditor has valid PAN and filing its income tax return regularly and the subsequent payments were through banking channel and as per books of a/c i.e. ledger A/c there is sale of Rs. 53,04,970/- to the appellant. So, the identity of the business creditor is beyond doubt. Again, returned income has nothing to do with credit lending capacity of the,business concern, return income may be less due to many reasons i.e. interest expenditure and administrative expenditure etc. Furthermore, this is the complete prerogative and business understanding of a party about the fact that to whom it will lend credit or not. 14 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf It is observed that the AO got field enquiry done through departmental inspector and the result of such enquiry is at page 13 of the assessment order wherein the AO has made a table and mentioned the observations of the Inspectors report in respect of all the parties. At serial number 6 against this party it is mentioned that “No Existence”. In my opinion if the trade creditor is not found at the given address that cannot be the sole reason to disallow entire purchases from the party. During the assessment proceedings the party has filed its reply u/s 133(6) of the Act which is at page 154 of the paper book. The AR has strongly objected to the action of AO who has denied inspectors report to the appellant in course of assessment proceedings by making an observation that inspectors report cannot be made available to the appellant as it is internal document of the department. I find that the appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of transaction with the AO and which is also filed before the undersigned in paper-book running from pages 154-163. On a perusal of the evidences, it is found that the evidences to justify purchases/ creditors are clearly established by the purchase bills, and the subsequent payments to the party through banking channels, the reply filed by the creditor u/s 133(6) of the Act along with enclosure such as copy of ledger account, ITR, confirmation. On the contrary the finding of the AO that the party is non-existent at the given address is solely on the basis of inspectors report which was never shared with the appellant in course of assessment proceedings and the arithmetical calculation done by AO is purely on suspicion and without any basis or reference cannot meet the test of law and is held to be bad in law. The most important fact is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales have been accepted as genuine, once the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. Further in no way the addition can be sustained which is purely on suspicion and surmises. I find from the Tax Audit Report at page 20 of the paper book that the gross profit of the appellant during the relevant assessment year is stated to be 7.31% as compared to 5.47% in immediately preceding assessment year, similarly the Net Profit percentage during the relevant assessment year is stated to be 0.96% as compared to 0.76% in the immediately preceding assessment year. Thus, there is much better result during the relevant assessment year and any disallowance with respect to trade creditor just on the basis of superfluous assumptions cannot be held to be justified. The application of section 68 as cash credit is bad in law in this case since the appellant has satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It is observed that except the above mentioned indirect factors based purely on assumption and suspicion, the AO was unable to bring any reliable evidence, documents or verification results which can prove that the business transaction is not genuine one and the business creditor has no capacity to conduct business of such a 15 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf volume. Such addition on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises is hereby deleted. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs 65,36,160/- is deleted. 9. Royal Traders In the assessment order, the AO has added back sum of Rs 49,72,500/- representing entire purchases made by the appellant during the relevant assessment year from this party. The AO stated that the departmental investigation shows that the company does not exist at the given address. The AO then analysed the appellant has shown purchase of goods worth Rs. 49,72,500/- from the party which was the closing balance payable at the end of the relevant assessment year. The AO being not satisfied with the genuineness and creditworthiness of the party added entire purchases of Rs 49,72,500/- as unexplained credits. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidences like. Purchase Bills, challans, ITR, Bank statements, PAN, ledger accounts, etc. to substantiate the claim. It is seen that the business creditor has valid PAN and filing its income tax return regularly and the subsequent payments were through banking channel and as per books of a/cs i.e. ledger A/c there is sale of Rs. 49,72,500/- to the appellant. So, the identity of the business creditor is beyond doubt. Again, returned income has nothing to do with credit lending capacity of the business concern, return income may be less due to many reasons i.e. interest expenditure and administrative expenditure etc. Furthermore, this is the complete prerogative and business understanding of a party about the fact that to whom it wi lend credit or not. Thus, the allegations of the AO do not have a leg to stand. It is observed that the AO got field enquiry done through departmental inspector an; the result of such enquiry is at page 13 of the assessment order wherein the AO has made a table and mentioned the observations of the Inspectors report r respect of all the parties. At serial number 7 against this party it is mentioned that “No Existence”. In my opinion if the trade creditor is not found at the given address that cannot be the sole reason to disallow entire purchases from the party. During the assessment proceedings the party has filed its reply u/s 133(6) of the Act which is at page 164 of the paper book. The AR has strongly objected to the action of AO who has denied inspectors report to the appellant in course of assessment proceedings by making an observation that inspectors report cannot be made available to the appellant as it is internal document of the department. I find that the appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove t-e genuineness of transaction with the AO and which is also filed before t-e undersigned in paper-book running from pages 164-169. On a perusal of t-e evidences, it is found that the evidences to justify purchases/ creditors are clearly established by the purchase bills, and the subsequent payments to the pan. through banking channels, the reply filed by the creditor u/s 133(6) of the Act along with enclosure such as copy of ledger account, ITR, confirmation etc. On the contrary the finding of the AO that the party is non-existent at the give- address is solely on the basis of inspectors report which was never shared with the appellant in 16 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf course of assessment proceedings and the action of AO is purely on suspicion and without any basis or reference which cannot meet the test of law and is held to be bad in law. The most important fact is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales have been accepted as genuine, once the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. Further in no way the addition can be sustained which is purely on suspicion and surmises. The application of section 68 as cash credit is bad in law in this case since the appellant has satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. This also can be mentioned here that except the above mentioned indirect factors based purely on assumption and suspicion, the AO was unable to bring any reliable evidence, documents or verification results which conclude that the business transaction is not genuine one and the business creditor has no capacity to conduct business of such a volume. Such addition on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises is hereby deleted. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 49,72,500/- is deleted. 10. Sharma Impex:- In the assessment order, the AO has added back sum of Rs. 55,94,760/- representing entire purchases made by the appellant during the relevant assessment year from this party. The AO stated that the notice u/s 133(6) returned unserved and payment of cheque does not guarantee genuineness. The AO relied upon inspector’s report and analysed that appellant has shown purchase of goods worth Rs. 55,94,760/- from the party out of which the closing balance payable at the end of the relevant assessment year was Rs. 49,163,160/-. The AO being not satisfied with the genuineness and creditworthiness of the party added entire purchases of Rs. 55,94,760/- as unexplained credits. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidences like, Purchase Bills, challans, ITR, Bank statements, PAN, ledger accounts, etc to substantiate the claim. It is seen that the business creditor has valid PAN and filing its income tax return regularly and the subsequent payments were through banking channel So, the identity of the business creditor is beyond doubt. Again, returned income has nothing to do with credit lending capacity of the business concern, returnincome may be less due to many reasons i.e. interest expenditure and administrative expenditure etc. Furthermore, this is the complete prerogative and business understanding of a party about the fact that to whom it will lend credit or not. Thus, the allegations of the AO are not based on sound logic. It is observed that the AO got field enquiry done through departmental inspector and the result of such enquiry is at page 13 of the assessment order wherein the AO has made a table and mentioned the observations of the Inspectors report in respect of all the parties. 17 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf At serial number 8 against this party it is mentioned that: "Business activities not in accordance with sales". In my opinion the Inspector neither has the authority nor has the ability to judge the business activities of any businessman on the date he visited the premises vis-a-vis the business activities when the same was undertaken by the appellant at least 3 years ago, thus the finding of inspector is only relevant to establish the fact that the party is very much present at the given address- and doing day to day business. This cannot be the reason to disallow entire purchases from the party. During the assessment proceedings the party has filed its reply u/s 133(6) of the Act which is at page 170 of the paper book. The AR has strongly objected to the action of AO who has denied inspectors report to the appellant in course of assessment proceedings by making an observation that inspectors report cannot be made available to the appellant as it is internal document of the department. I find that the appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of transaction with the AO and which is also filed before the undersigned in paper-book running from pages 170-174. On a perusal of the evidences, it is found that the evidences to justify purchases/ creditors are clearly established by the purchase bills, and the subsequent payments to the party through banking channels, the reply filed by the creditor u/s 133(6) of the Act along with enclosure such as copy of ledger account, ITR, confirmation. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. Further in no way the addition can be sustained which is purely on suspicion and surmises. The application of section 68 as cash credit is bad in law in this case since the appellant has satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. This also can be mentioned here that except the above mentioned indirect factors based purely on assumption and suspicion, the AO was unable to bring any reliable evidence, documents or verification res u is which could prove that the business transaction is not genuine one and the business creditor has no capacity to conduct business of such a volume. Suchaddition on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises is hereby deleted. Thus addition made by the AO amounting to Rs 49,72,500/- is deleted. 11. Rafikul Islam:- In the assessment order, it is seen that the AO initially doubted the existence of the creditor. In order to verify the identity of the loan creditor the AO issued commission to the ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly and the said authority confirm the physical existence of the loan creditor. The business creditor has filed his income tax return regularly and all the payments were through banking channels. But the AO made addition of Rs. 5,06,775/- on the ground of non-genuineness of the business and non-creditworthiness of the business creditor. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidences to support his claim. Bank statements, ledger accounts, Voter ID cards as well as Aadhar card of the creditor were submitted at Pages 175-179 of the paper-book. Regarding genuineness of transaction and the creditworthiness of the said business creditor, here the AO had taken 18 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf different approach and on the basis of reply of ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly treated the transaction as bogus and made the addition. But before making addition, the AO did not provide the appellant any reasonable opportunity of being heard to submit his position. Before making addition to offer sufficient opportunity to explain the position of the appellant is a basic criterion of natural justice. Here the AO violates the said norms. So, in the light of above, the addition made by the AO is not acceptable. From the ledger account, it is found that this is a regular party with whom appellant has transaction in earlier year also. The most important fact is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales have been accepted as genuine, once the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. Further in no way the addition can be sustained which is purely on suspicion and surmises. Moreover, in the instant case the AO invoke sec 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the time of addition. But this action of the AO is bad in law. The provision of section 68 of the Act will be attracted only in the case where no sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee unable to offer any plausible explanation regarding the nature and source of the same or explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. However, the appellant has satisfactorily explained all the three essential ingredients in its favour. Regarding non-genuineness of the business transaction the AO stated in the assessment order that mere payment by cheque does not prove the genuineness of the transaction. ‘Cash to cheque is a popular method adopted by the party to evade tax. But the AO is unable to prove the fact, mere allegation has no effect and in fact it proves that the AO is prejudiced. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the addition made by the AO is only on the basis of suspicion and doubt and such type of predetermined addition have no significance and the same is hereby deleted. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs 5,06,775/- u/s 68 is deleted. 12. Niharika Sarees:- In the assessment order, the AO has added back Rs 20,00,010/- which is purchase of trading goods- sarees on credit from Niharika Sarees. At the initial stage the AO was doubtful about the physical existence of the party. Subsequently, the AO mad addition of Rs. 20,00,010/- on the ground of non-genuineness of the transaction and non-existence of the creditworthiness of the party. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidenced enclosed at Pages 180-186 of the paper-book. In this case also the sale creditor has valid PAN and it has filed income tax return regularly and maintaining books of account and subsequent payments were through 19 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf banking channels and the party maintaining books of accounts and ledger of the party and the sale was there. Regarding non-genuineness of the transactions the AO stated that mare payment by cheque is not a indicator of genuineness of the transaction. AO also stated that tax evaders use popular method of cash to cheque to evade instances of tax. But the AO was not able to prove the fact that there was cash transaction only cheque transaction was there even the AO unable to bring any evidence of document which can prove allegation. In the instant case the AO invoke sec 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the time of addition. But this action of the AO is bad in law. The provision of section 68 of the Act will be attracted only in the case where no sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee unable to offer any plausible explanation regarding the nature and source of the same or explanation offered the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. However, the appellant had established all the three ingredients in its favour. Regarding non-genuineness of the business transaction the AO stated in the assessment order that mere payment by cheque does not prove the genuineness of the transaction. Cash to cheque is a popular method adopted by the party to evade tax. Moreover, regarding genuineness of the transaction, all the payments etc were through banking channel. The allegation of the AO that mere cheque payment did not indicate genuineness of the transaction has no relevance because this is the accepted norms to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Again, the AO failed to prove the same or unable to bring any evidence of documents which can substantiate the claim made by the AO. Mere allegation on suspicion has no bearing in the material world. The most important fact is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales have been accepted as genuine, once the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the addition made by the AO is only on the basis of suspicion and doubt and such type of predetermined addition have no significance and the same is hereby deleted. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs 20,00,010/- u/s 68 is deleted. 13. Laxmi Trading Company:- In the assessment order, the AO has added back sum of Rs 56,85,940/- representing entire purchases made by the appellant during the relevant assessment year from this party. The AO stated that the departmental investigation shows that the party’s business activities are not in accordance with the sales. The AO then analysed that the party has shown an income of Rs. 6,18,670/- only and giving credit of Rs. 56,85,940/- is highly impossible. Thus, the AO opined that credit given to the appellant is 8 times more than the yearly income which is a gross deviation from any business norms and questioned the 20 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor and added Rs 65,36,160/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R submitted documentary evidences like Purchase Bills, challans, ITR, Bank statements, PAN, ledger accounts, etc to substantiate the claim. It is seen that the business creditor has valid PAN and filing its income tax return regularly and the subsequent payments were through banking channel. So, the identity of the business creditor is beyond doubt. Again, returned income has nothing to do with credit lending capacity of the business concern, return income may be less due to many reasons i.e. interest expenditure and administrative expenditure etc. Furthermore, this is the complete prerogative and business understanding of a party about the fact that to whom it will lend credit or not. It is observed that the AO got field enquiry done through departmental inspector and the result of such enquiry is at page 13 of the assessment order wherein the AO has made a table and mentioned the observations of the Inspectors report in respect of all the parties. At serial number 11 against this party it is mentioned that "Business activities not in accordance with sales". In my opinion the Inspector neither has the authority nor has the ability to judge the business activities of any businessman on the date he visited the premises vis-a-vis the business activities when the same was undertaken by the appellant at least 3 years ago, thus the finding of inspector is only relevant to establish the fact that the party is very much present at the given address and doing day to day business. This cannot be the reason to disallow entire purchases from the party. During the assessment proceedings the party has filed its reply u/s 133(6) of the Act which is at page 187 of the paper book. The AR has strongly objected to the action of AO who has denied inspectors report to the appellant in course of assessment proceedings by making an observation that inspectors report cannot be made available to the appellant as it is internal document of the department. I find that the appellant submitted all documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of transaction with the AO and which is also filed before the undersigned in paper-book running from pages 187-194. On a perusal of the evidences, it is found that the evidences to justify purchases/ creditors are clearly established by the purchase bills, and the subsequent payments to the party through banking channels, the reply filed by the creditor u/s 133(6) of the Act along with enclosure such as copy of ledger account, ITR, confirmation. On the contrary,the finding of the AO is purely on suspicion and without any basis or reference which cannot meet the test of law and is held to be bad in law. The most important fact is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales have been accepted as genuine, once the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. Further in no way the addition can be sustained which is purely on suspicion and surmises. At the initial stage the AO was doubtful about the physical existence of the party. But subsequently, the AO made addition of Rs. 56,85,940/- on the ground of non- ¬genuineness of the business transaction and non-availability of creditworthiness of the 21 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf said party. The AO further observed that return income of the business creditor was Rs. 3,46,080/- only and the total credit sale to the appellant was Rs. 56,85,940/- which is 14.07 times of its return income with this the AO tried to establish gross deviation of any business norms. Regarding non-genuineness of the business transaction the AO stated in the assessment order that mere payment by cheque does not prove the genuineness of the transaction. Cash to cheque is a popular method adopted by the party to evade tax. Moreover, regarding genuineness of the transaction, all the payments etc were through banking channel. The allegation of the AO that mere cheque payment did not indicate genuineness of the transaction has no relevance because this is the accepted norms to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Again the AO failed to prove the same or unable to bring any evidence of documents which can substantiate the claim made by the AO. Mere allegation on suspicion has no bearing in the material world. In the instant case the AO invoke sec 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the time of addition. But this action of the AO is bad in law. The provision of section 68 of the Act will be attracted only in the case where no sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee unable to offer any plausible explanation regarding the nature and source of the same or explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. But here, the appellant has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the addition made by the AO is only on the basis of suspicion and doubt and such type of predetermined addition have no significance and the same is hereby deleted. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 56,85,940/- u/s 68 is deleted. 14. Swastik Enterprises:- In the assessment order, it is seen that the AO raised some question regarding the genuineness and existence of the business creditor and ultimately made addition of Rs. 36,92, 980/- u/s 68 of the Act as cash credit on the ground of non—genuinity and non- availability of creditworthiness of the business creditor. In support of the non-existence of the business creditor, the AO stated that payment by cheque did not prove genuineness of the transaction as cash to cheque is a regular method adopted by the ........................ During the appellate proceedings, the A.R in the paper book enclosed at Pages ............. Submitted that the ITR, PAN, ledger etc, it is seen that regarding ................. the AO did not make any separate discussion. Here the ............... properly complied the notices issued by the AO. The business............ and it has filed income tax return regularly, so there is no ................. the identity of the loan creditor. Moreover, regarding genuineness of the transaction, all the payments etc. were through banking channel. The allegation of the AO that mere cheque payment did not indicate genuineness of the transaction has no relevance because this is the accepted norms to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Again, the AO failed to prove the same or unable to bring any evidence of documents which can substantiate the claim made by the AO. Only allegation has no bearing in the material world. Again, the business transaction properly reflected in the books of the creditor and in the ledger an amount of Rs. 36,92,980/- was shown as outstanding balance of the appellant. 22 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf The most important fact is that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading in sarees and the sales are accepted to be genuine the corresponding purchases cannot be held to be bogus because without purchases sales can never be achieved. The appellant has submitted all corroborative documents which has not been questioned by the AO at all. It is also found that the AO has neither rejected the books of accounts of the appellant nor found any fault with the sales, the accounts are audited by Chartered Accountant. Further in no way the addition can be sustained which is purely on suspicion and surmises. In the instant case the AO invoke Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the time of addition. But this action of the AO is bad in law. The provision of Section 68 of the Act will be attracted only in the case where no sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee unable to offer any plausible explanation regarding the nature and source of the same or explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. But here, the appellant has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the addition made by the AO is only o the basis of suspicion and doubt and such type of predetermined addition have no significance and the same is hereby deleted. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 36,92,980/- u/s 68 is deleted. In order to prove the non-genuineness of the business transaction and to expose the fabricated nature of business transaction, the AO in assessment order at 22 nd para of page 28 raised an issue. As per AO the following alleged business concern namely a) Sharma Impex, b) Hari Om Enterprises and c) Swastik Enterprise has the same ITR and same PAN and by this the AO tried to indicate the bogus nature/fabricated business transaction. But actually, Shri Pawan Kumar Garg with PAN-ADRPG 5267 D is the proprietor of the above stated three business concern. These three business concerns are different and their business establishments are also different but their owner is the same person. So, there is no abnormality in this issue also. Thus, the entire addition of Rs. 4,97,94,095/- representing purchases and loan creditors as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit is deleted and this ground is allowed.” 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused thematerial on record including the appellate order as well as the order passed by the AO. We observe from the facts before us that the AO has failed to appreciate the correct nature of the transactions and wrongly come to the conclusion that Rs. 4,97,94,095/- was credited in the books of accounts on account of unsecured loans taken by the assessee from various parties whereas as a matter of fact out of the above 14 parties only from 6 parties, the assessee had taken an aggregate of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- whereas the remaining of Rs. 23 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf 3,42,94,095/- represented the sundry trade creditors with whom the assessee has regular business dealings of purchase of sarees. We have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) had discussed each and every party in the appellate order in respect of loan creditors. In respect Shrikanta Somani , we note that the said party has filed reply in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act which is dealt with and discussed in the appellate order and summons issued u/s 131 of the Act by the AO were honored by appearing before the AO in compliance and statement u/s 131 of the Act was recorded and is extracted in the assessment order. We note that the party had even confirmed to have given loan to the assessee however the AO has simply added the amount reasoning that she was not operating her bank account and the bank account was operated by her husband. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also given a finding of fact that the said loan was taken from Smt. Srikanta Somani amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- for meeting business exigency and said loan was repaid during the assessment year itself. It was also noted that the interest of Rs. 47,013/- was paid after deduction of TDS of Rs. 4,701/- and duly accounted for in the books of accounts. We that ld CIT(A) also recorded a finding that the AO had treated the amount as unexplained whereas the interest paid was allowed by treating the same as genuine. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted on the basis of bank statement filed by the said loan creditor that there was no cash deposited in her account before issuing cheque to the assessee and the bank was having sufficient balance in the account with year end closing balance of Rs. 27,10,091/-. We also observe from the appellate order that the said party duly returned the interest received from the assessee in the return of income and the said findings of the ld CIT(A) were not controverted. Considering these factual findings of facts by the first appellate authority and arguments of the ld counsel of the assessee and the ld DR , we do nor find any infirmity in the appellate order and are inclined to hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said addition made by the AO as the assessee has established the identity and creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transactions. In respect of second party Smt. Madhu Kanta Somani from whom Rs. 15,00,000/- was borrowed by the assesse, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the said party appeared before the AO in response to the summons 24 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf u/s 131 of the Act and submitted all the necessary details such as bank statement, ITR etc and confirmed to have given the loan to the assessee. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding of fact that the loan was repaid during the year and the said party had sufficient balance as on 31.03.2015 of Rs. 53,13,720/- thereby negating the finding of the AO that there was no creditworthiness of the said lender. Similar findings were given in respect of Rs. 47,835/- paid as interest after deduction of TDS of Rs. 4,784/- which was allowed by the AO and duly returned by Smt. Madhu Kanta in the return of income whereas the AO treated the principal amount as not genuine by allowing the interest on the said loan which is contradictory and thus we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) as the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were duly proved by the assessee. In respect of third party M/S Akriti Finance pvt. Ltd. from whom the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- , we observe that the said company is non-banking finance company. The AO treated the loan as non genuine on the ground that reply to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act did not prove the identity, creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction and the said company is a paper company with no business activities as is apparent from the statement of entry operator Abhishek Chokhani recorded by the DDIT(Inv), Kolkata. The counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the statement of Shri Abhishek Chokhani was not confronted to the assessee and thus relied on the back of the assesse thereby causing miscarriage of natural justice and addition made on the basis of said statement is bad. We note that the assessee has furnished NBFC certificate issued by Reserve Bank of India, ITR, PAN, bank statements, loan confirmation and audited annual accounts. We note that during the year the gross revenue from operations stood at Rs. 1,10,37,917/- which included interest income of Rs. 83,55,052/- and share trading of Rs. 17,01,721/-. We note that interest of Rs. 25,822/- was paid after deduction of TDS of Rs. 2,582/- which was deposited in the Govt. Treasury. In our considered view the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to delete this addition as the assessee proved all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act.In respect of fourth loan creditor M/S Jodhani Management Pvt. Ltd. we note that the assessee has 25 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-.The said company is a non-banking finance company duly registered with RBI and has granted loan to the assessee for business purposes . We note that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 4,63,425/- to the lender after deduction of TDS of Rs. 46,343/- which was duly paid into the Govt. treasury.We also note that the AO has not made any disallowance in respect of interest whereas loan was treated as non-genuine. We have also examined the audited annual accounts of the said company and found that the said company derived gross revenue of Rs. 1,06,89,172/- out of which the interest segment was to the tune of Rs. 82,07,081/- and sale of shares accounted for Rs. 24,82,091/-. Considering the factual matrix , we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same as the assessee has proved all the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. We note that similar findings have been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of other parties namely Hrishikesh Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and Radha Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. in para 5 & 6 that identity, creditworthiness of the lenders were proved and that the transactions were genuine and thus rightly deleted the addition in respect of which the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transaction were duly proved. Therefore as far as the addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by giving comprehensive findings after examining all the documents comprising bank statements, ITRs, balance sheets and loan confirmations etc. and also stating that the findings of the AO were contradictory as loans were treated as non- genuine while interest paid on these loans were duly allowed. In view of these facts and circumstances we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). 10. So far as the addition of Rs. 3,42,94,095/- is concerned which in fact represented the sundry trade creditors which arose in the ordinary course of business,we note that the assessee has furnished the complete details of purchases made from these parties and furnished all the details before the AO. In respect of first party a detailed finding has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) at para 7. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in respect of first party the AO added the same of Rs. 53,07,970/- which is on account of purchase of sarees on credit from the said party. The AO stated that the 26 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf departmental investigation showed that the said company did not exist at the given address whereas the assessee has filed all the purchase bills, bank statement, challans, PAN, ledger accounts etc. to prove the genuineness of the said creditor. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also given a finding that the said creditor has duly filed return of income. The Ld. A.R while referring to page no. 13 of assessment order stated that the AO had simply made the addition on the basis of Inspector’s report whereas as a matter of fact the said party responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act and strongly objected to the allegation that the premises of the said party were locked. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the AO has not doubted the corresponding sales made by the assessee out of the said purchases and thus came to the conclusion that once the sales were accepted to be genuine, the corresponding purchase could not be held to be bogus. The Ld. CIT(A) also analyzed the gross profit and net profit of the assessee during the year vis-à-vis the proceeding financial year and recorded a finding that during the year the gross profit was 7.31% as compared to 5.47% in preceding assessment year with net profit of 0.96% vis-à-vis 0.76% in the immediately preceding assessment year and thus came to conclusion that addition made by the AO is purely based upon the assumptions, presumptions and conjectures while the assessee has duly proved identity, creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transactions. Considering all the above facts we do not find any defect or deficiency in the appellate order in which the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view after appreciating the evidences on record. In respect of Hari Om Enterprise, the AO added a sum of Rs. 65,36,160/- virtually the entire amount of purchase made by the assessee from the said party during the year. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to observations of the AO that out of total purchase of Rs. 65,36,160/- from the said party Rs. 49,13,160/- was outstanding at the year end while the income shown by the said party was Rs. 6,18,670/- which is highly impossible against the credit of Rs. 49,13,160/-. The Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee referred to the documents such as bank statement, challans, purchase bills, ITR, PAN, Ledger accounts etc and the payments against this outstanding amount in the subsequent years. Thus we find merit in the contentions of the Ld. A.R that no addition could be made merely on the 27 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf basis that the supplier was not available at the given address by overlooking the facts and evidences on records as filed by the assessee as well as by the party in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. We also note that the Inspector’s report was also not made available to the assessee on the ground that this is an internal report of the Department which is against the principal of natural justice and addition made on the sole basis of Inspector’s report cannot be sustained. Similarly detailed findings have been given by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the other additions in respect of sundry trade creditors. 11. In addition, the counsel of the assessee vehemently made arguments before us that the provisions of Section 68 are applicable only in respect of loan transactions which were found to be credited in the books of accounts during the year and are not genuine and not in respect of creditors which are correspondingly represented by purchase of material. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions of Co- ordinate Benches namely Raghubar Singh vs. DCIT reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 187 (Patna-Trib) and Allied Infra Suppliers, Ganjam vs. DCIT in ITA NO. 481/CTK/2017 dated 16.11.2018. In both the above decisions, the Co-ordinate Benches have held that the provisions of Section 68 are to be applied to the case of cash credit and not to the sundry creditors arising out of purchases as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also cited before us the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal reported in [2010] 2 taxmann.com 134 (Del) to buttress his arguments on the issue that where sales are treated as genuine the corresponding purchases cannot held to be bogus. In the above case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under: “2. It would be worthwhile to mention that the aforesaid creditors shown in the books of accounts, are the sundry creditors, from whom as per the assessee, he had made purchases. They are thus the creditors. The Tribunal found that even if it is accepted that the books were rejected, significantly the Assessing Officer had not disallowed the purchases from those creditors nor the trading results have been disturbed. In this behalf, learned counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to the orders of the Assessing Officer, as per which the assessee had shown the total turnover of Rs. 1,03,44,054, on which gross profit rates declared was 68.94% as compared to sales of Rs. 21,18,994 in the previous year. The Assessing Officer accepted the aforesaid figures and categorically observed as under: 28 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf "The GP rate as well as the sales has been substantially increased during the year in comparison to the last year. Sales trading results are not disturbed." 3. This finding of Assessing Officer remained undisturbed before the CIT(A) as well and has been accepted by the ITAT. Proceeding on this basis, the ITAT observed that the sales, purchases as well as gross profits as disclosed by the assessee have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Once this is accepted, we are of the opinion that the approach of the ITAT was correct inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect while making additions of the sundry creditors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors' outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the Assessing Officer. 5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 12. Similar finding has been given by the Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2620/Kol/2014 dated 07.09.2016 and the relevant portion reproduced as under: “This is a case, where the books are not outrightly rejected, there is no adverse inference drawn regarding quantum of purchases or sales and even the purchase accounts of the sundry creditors have not been disturbed. The act that the assessee maintained regular books of account including stock register is ITA No.2620/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2010-11 ITO Wd-12(1), Kol. vs. M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 also not negated. The Assessing Officer had not disallowed the purchases from those creditors nor the trading results were disturbed. In CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal -IT Appeal No. 325 of 2008 dated 22/7/2009, dealing with section 68 of the IT Act in a similar case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed '....Proceeding on this basis, the ITAT observed that the sales, purchases as well as gross profits as disclosed by the assessee have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Once this is accepted, we are of the opinion that the approach of the ITAT was correct inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect while making additions of the sundry creditors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. As there was no case for disallowance for responding purchases, no addition could be made under section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors' outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the Assessing Officer.” 13. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the various other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches namely ITO vs. Zazsons Exports Ltd. reported in [2016] 158 ITD 1 (Lucknow-Trib) and Gulf Steel & Minerals vs. ITO in ITA No. 57/Ran/2016 dated 04.05.2018 wherein the Co-ordinate Benches have held that no addition can be made in respect of sundry creditor where sundry creditors related to the purchases which are accepted by the AO. The Co-ordinate Benches have held that without 29 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf rejecting the purchases, the sundry creditor cannot be treated as the income of the assessee besides holding that the application of Section 68 to make addition in respect of current purchases is wholly arbitrary and against the law. In view of these facts and circumstances and detailed finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) and the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed hereinabove ,we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has passed a very reasoned and speaking order discussing each and every factual detail while allowing the appeal. Consequently ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 14. Issue raised in ground no. 2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 3,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO by making disallowance in respect of donation and subscription u/s 37 of the Act while issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 31,602/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO @ 15% of Telephone expenses and motor car expenses. 15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has charged to the profit and loss account Rs. 3,000/- on account of donation and subscription and these expenses are not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and without giving show cause notice to the assesse added the same to the income of the assesse. Similarly in respect of telephone expenses and motor car expenses, the AO has simply disallowed 15% of aggregate of telephone and motor car expenses of Rs. 2,10,678/- by making the disallowance of Rs. 31,602/- on presumption basis that personal use cannot be ruled out. 16. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no order of addition based on surmises and conjectures is permissible under the law. 17. We have heard rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the AO has made addition without giving any cogent reasons and also without giving any show cause notice to the assessee. Thus undoubtedly the additions made by the AO were purely on surmises and conjecture without pointing out of any defect or deficiency in the bills, vouchers in respect of these expenses. Under these facts and 30 ITA No. 24 & 25/Kol/2021 AY: 2015-16 Raj Kumar Saraf circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed. 18. Issued raised in ground no. 4 is general in nature and does not need any adjudication. ITA No. 25/Kol/2021 A.Y. 2016-17. 19. The issues involved in this appeal is identical one as decided by us in ground no. 1 & 2 in ITA No. 24/Kol/2021 AY 2015-16 supra and therefore, our decision in ground no. 1 & 2 in ITA No. 24/Kol/2021 AY 2015-16 would,mutatis mutandis,apply to this appeal as well. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 20. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 11 th November, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma/ संजय शमा ) (Rajesh Kumar/ राजेश क ु मार) Judicial Member / या यक सद य Accountant Member / लेखा सद य Dated: 11 th November, 2022 SB, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- ACIT, Circle-43, Kolkata 2. Respondent –Raj Kumar Saraf, (Prop. Shri Ganapati Saree), 49/1/1, Cotton Street, 1 st Floor, Kolkata-700007. 3. Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026