IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 391/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Department represented by : Praveen Kishore, CIT (DR).

Assessee represented by : None.

Date of concluding the hearing : 13-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06-January-2026

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 29.12.2023.

2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi erred in restrict the addition of Rs. 26,92,50,000/- in the form of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961, to real money only without giving due weightage to the unjustified payment of high premium to acquire shares so credited which has money’s worth and once the credit so mentioned in the section U/s 68 of the Act is found to be not supported by any acceptable evidence and despite the fact that creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions of subscribing companies was not beyond doubt.

2. For that, the appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, modify, substitute otherwise in any or all of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and had filed its original return of income showing total income of ₹480/- and the return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee but there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO'), on perusal of the facts and circumstances in the instant case as well as the assessee’s inability to discharge its own burden of proof to substantiate its claim of introduction of fresh share capital even after given several numbers of opportunities, held that the purported fresh capital along with the premium aggregating to ₹26,92,50,000/- was nothing but the assessee’s own money introduced under the garb of fresh share capital in the assessee’s business. Therefore, a sum of ₹26,92,50,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credit found in the books of the assessee during the AY 2012-13 and added back to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹26,92,69,613/- u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29.12.2023 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:

“5. I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under-

Ground no. 1,2,3,4:-

I have gone through the details and following additional points (over and above the observation of AO) were noticed:-

1. There was no business transaction during the year. Only income was from interest (Rs.21,800/-).

2. There was no business transaction during the earlier year also.

3. The assessee had asset of only Rs. 51,400/-.

This shows that there was no basis for charging/paying such huge premium on the shares.

Therefore the action of AO appears to be justified.

However the following assessee submissions of assessee has to be considered before deciding the issue:-

“1. That the assessee is not beneficiary of capital raised during the