|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ , म ुंबई|

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 6818/MUM/2024 ( नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13)

DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai v/s. M/s. Chopra Strips Ltd.

Room No. 579A, 5^th Floor, D-194-195, Boranada Agro बिाम Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Food Park, Jodhpur, 400020 Rajasthan-342008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCC3063C ..

Appellant/ Respondent/

अपीलार्थी प्रनिवादी

निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal/Shri Satish Gupta राजस्व की ओर से

/Revenue by: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. DR.

07.05.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing

30.06.2025 घो

िारीख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 22.10.2024 passed u/s.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessee has satisfied the triple test condition prescribed u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 in terms of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditor, in view of specific information received from investigation wing regarding share capital received from Kolkata based accommodation entry operator.

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact of the case that the Assessing Officer made relevant enquiring including sending the commission and therefore has proved beyond doubt that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry in the nature of Share Capital.

3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the applicability of human probabilities as held in Sumati Dayal V. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 19.09.2012, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,81,948/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 18.03.2019. Therefore, AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, at the assessed income of Rs. 2,58,18,052 after making an addition of Rs.

2,60,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 22.10.2024, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO.

5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. With regard to the sole issue involved, the brief facts are as follows:

i. It came to the notice of the Ld. AO that the assessee had made the following transactions in which huge share premium was received: 1. Prime Capital Market Kolkata (PCM) - Rs. 1,45,00,000/-

2. Unisys Software & Holding Industries Ltd. Kolkata (USHI)–Rs. 1,15,00,000/-

Total - Rs. 2,60,00,000/-

ii. Ld. AO asked the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee requested the AO to provide copies of statements recorded by Investigation Wing, which were duly provided. Since the persons were based in Kolkata, a commission was issued to the ADIT (Inv.), Kolkata for giving the assessee an opportunity to cross-examination all the persons whose statements were being used against the assessee. However, despite a specific opportunity provided, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of cross-examination at Kolkata and instead requested the AO to summon the concerned persons in Mumbai office.

iii. Further, a commission was also issued by Ld. AO to ADIT (Inv.)

K