IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys And Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant

128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026..

[PAN: AADCK6558K]

vs.

ACIT, CC-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : December 16, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 14, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 05.02.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The case was originally selected for scrutiny on the issue of share capital and share premium received during the year. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of alleged non-compliance, and made an addition of ₹2,00,00,000 being share capital and share premium received from various companies, treating the same as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132(1) along with a survey under section 133A was conducted in the Devakibaivelji Group cases. Consequent thereto, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed its return declaring total income of ₹19,59,980. During the assessment proceedings under section 153A read with section 143(3), the Assessing Officer again examined the issue of share capital and share premium. According to the Assessing Officer, the directors of the investor companies failed to appear in compliance to summons u/s 131 of the Act and the Assessing Officer thereafter discussed the modus- operandi of these companies and after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that revenue authorities are also supposed to consider the surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probability. The Assessing Officer held that there was no reason in issuing shares at a high premium and finally the Assessing Officer despite furnishing extensive documentary evidence by the assessee made an addition of ₹2,00,00,000 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and also disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses.

3. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), where the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition of ₹2,00,00,000.

4. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR stated that impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. He stated that it is undisputed that during the year, the assessee issued shares of face value ₹10 at a premium of ₹90 and received a total sum of ₹2 crore from the following investor companies:

5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that during the assessment proceedings assessee had furnished audited financial statements of investor companies, Income-tax returns, Bank statements evidencing payments through banking channels, Share application forms and confirmations, Source letters and MCA master data showing that all investor companies were active companies. Even, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the investor companies, which were duly complied with in all cases except Manpasand Agency Pvt. Ltd., where non-compliance occurred only due to change