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

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., CC-2(2), Kolkata Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAACJ5746M Appearances:

Assessee represented by : Rajeeva Kumar, Adv.

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

Date of concluding the hearing : 29-December-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-February-2026

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Pr.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-1 [hereinafter referred to Ld. 'Pr. CIT'] passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 27.03.2024.

1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 12 days. However, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 11 days explaining the reasons that the memorandum of appeal along with the required documents were given to the tax consultant who could not file the appeal in time due to the illness of the tax consultant’s father and the assessee has prayed for condonation of the said delay. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

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

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 27.03.2024 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Ld. PCIT is bad in law and is need to be quashed.

2. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT erred in passing order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the order dated 21.07.2021 passed u/s. 153A of the Act holding the same to be erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that the unsecured loan received from M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt Ltd should have been treated as deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no incriminating material was found in the course of the search and seizure operation carried out in the case of the assessee, the assessment was made u/s 153A of the Act without taking any adverse view for the unsecured loan received from M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt Ltd. Hence, the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its original return of income for AY 2014-15 on 31.12.2014 showing ‘NIL’ income and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 17.12.2016 at ‘NIL’ income. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08.10.2018 in which certain documents were found but the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act dated 21.07.2021 was made at the total income of ₹39,59,000/-. The assessee company was primarily engaged in the business of real estate activities. In the order u/s 153A of the Act dated 21.07.2021 as per para 8.1.2 and 9, a sum of ₹39,59,000/- was added u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant extract from the order of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') is as under:

“8.1.2. The key person of the group, Heeralal Jaiswal, in his statements recorded post Search Operation on 06.12.2018 and 21.01.2019 also affirmed that same of infusion of unaccounted income of Rs. 43,99,55,103/-

.

But the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, in reply to the show cause notice dated 06.05.2021 replied vide its letter dated: 14.05.2021 that the key person, Heeralal Jaiswal has retracted of his statement recorded during the course of Searc