vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 514/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@

Assessment Years : 2012-13 Brand India Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. cuke Income Tax Officer, 262, C Block Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Vs. Ward-6(1), . Jaipur.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCP7925K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &

Ms. Satwika Jha, Adv.

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 12/08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 08.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The said order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC arises against the order 21.11.2019 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur.

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

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer by treating share capital and premium thereon received from the various parties as bogus and added to the total income of the assessee.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the proceeding u/s 148 of the Act initiate by the ld. Assessing Officer when the assessee was already assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and all material were provided before the ld. Assessing Officer.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in re-opening and confirming the assessment on the basis of information received from Investigation wing, without providing the material evidence and statement recorded u/s 132 of the Act of Shri Mukwesh Banka during the search proceeding and without providing the opportunity of cross examination to the assessee appellant.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring income at Rs. (-) 9464/- on 21.03.2014 which was assessed under section 143(3) on 26.11.2014 at returned income. Later on, specific information was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit 1(3), Kolkata regarding accommodation entries taken by the assessee company during the year under consideration. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2019 solely on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit 1(3), Kolkata, after recording reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The notice was issued after taking necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur under section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. In the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment it is alleged that assessee company had taken some accommodation entries from some paper/shell companies for the purpose of tax evasion.Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 05.11.2019. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 08.11.2019 declaring the income as returned originally. The AO again issued show cause notice 13.11.2019 requiring the assessee to explain the amount of entry taken by the assessee along with documentary evidence i.e. copies of ITRs of the lenders, confirmation of money given by them and copies of their bank statements for the year under consideration, in support of i