आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ' ' , कोलकाता बी पीठ कोलकाता म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA , श्री जॉजज माथान न्याधयक सदस्य एवं , श्री राके श धमश्रा लखे ा सदस्य के सम Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1234/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITO, Kolkata Blackberry Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AADCB3718L Appearances:

Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT, DR.

Assessee represented by : None.

Date of concluding the hearing : 16-June-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24-July-2025

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 2008-09 dated 03.08.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263/147 of the Act, dated 31.03.2014. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld.

DR.

1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 49 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under:

“In this case, date of filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT has already been expired as per date of order of NFAC, Delhi (i.e. 02.10.2023]. Due to the following reasons delay for filing 2^nd appeal has been made for the A.Y.

2008 09.

(i) On 05.09.2023: Appeal Order downloaded from ITBA portal.

(ii) On 29.09.2023: Assessment record received from WRITER.

(iii) On 04.10.2023: ASR send to o/o PCIT-2, Kolkata through Proper Channel.

(iv) On 13.10.2023: ASR send to o/o PCIT-2, Kolkata from o/o JCIT, Range-

5, Kolkata.

(v) On 31.10.2023: Certificates for filing appeal u/s 253 of the IT Act has been received from o/o PCIT-2, Kolkata.

Kindly condone the said delay for filing 2nd Appeal.”

1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

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

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC, Nev Delhi was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,33,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act or account of Share Capital and Premium in the course of assessment in absence of identity of the Creditors, Genuineness and Creditworthiness of the entire transactions.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. NFAC, New Delhi was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,33,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer where no personal attendance was made by any director of the share allottee companies during the course of assessment proceedings and as such identity & creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions could not be verified.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi has failed to appreciate the principle which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT(Central)-1, Kolkata vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) wherein it is suggested that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine or these are bogus entries of name lenders . In facts of the case, in spite of best efforts made by the assessing officer, he could not verify the same as there was no response from the companies to whom shares were allotted during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the decisions of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi is erroneous in holding that the raised share