Calcutta High Court
Apl Metals Limited vs Additional/Joint/ Deputy ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
ORDER OD-1
ITAT/83/2024
IA NO:GA/1/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
APL METALS LIMITED
VS.
ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER
AND ANR.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Date : 12th November, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prmit Bag, Adv.
Mr. Riddhiman Mukherjee, Adv.
... for Appellant
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Ankan Das, Adv.
...for Respondent
The Court: We have heard Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant.
This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
"I. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of Rs.48,74,52,456/- in respect of purchases duly reflected and accounted for in the appellant's books of account under section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?
II. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in relying upon alleged statements of two persons, copies of whole of which were not supplied to the appellant 2 and it was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine such persons in spite of request?
III. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in the proceeding on the assumption as if the appellant had not furnished information regarding raw materials purchased and consumed or the furnished goods manufactured and sold or the yield of finished goods when such information was duly furnished including before the authorities below?
IV. Whether and in any event the Tribunal was justified in law in proceeding on the assumption as if lead ingots worth Rs.48,74,52,456/- were not purchased at all when the authorities below had accepted the factum of purchase but had raised a dispute as to the parties from whom the purchases were made and the price paid therefor, and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?
V. Whether the purported findings of the Tribunal that the appellant had not explained the nature or source of the expenditure on purchases of Rs.48,74,52,456/- or that the appellant's explanation was not satisfactory and invoking section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax, 1961 are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?
VI. Whether and in any event, the Tribunal was justified in law in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss against the business income and the impugned addition on account of purchases and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?"
The appellant is directed to file requisite number of informal paper books prepared out of court enclosing therein all relevant papers and documents used before the learned trial court within 10 (ten) weeks from date by serving copies thereof to the learned Advocate for the respondents.
Settlement of index and all other formalities are dispensed with. List this matter after 12 (twelve) weeks.
3The interim order already passed on 15th March, 2024 and has been extended from time to time, will continue till the disposal of the instant appeal.
IA No: GA/1/2024 stands disposed of.
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) sm