IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year 2012-2013)

M/s Stupendors Traders Private Limited, 25, Strand Road, Room No. 613, Marshall House, Dalhousie, Kolkata - 700001 ……..…...…………….... Appellant [PAN: AADCS7524F]

vs.

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Ayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ……..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13.10.2025

O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1. The present appeal arises from order dated 23.03.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. The present matter involves second round proceedings as the first round was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) in the interests of natural justice (vide ITAT’s order dated 12.06.2019, ITA No. 2317/Kol/2017). The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 17,75,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, on account of alleged unverified share premium and share capital.

1.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not succeed and the following findings of Ld. CIT(A) would summarize his stand:

“5.2.2 On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the AO has stated that notices u/s 131 were issued to all the directors of shareholders companies of assessee asking for personal appearance for producing furnishing details/documents in support of n support of the justification for the investment made by them in the and other The AO has categorically assessee company mentioned that none of them appeared in response to such notices u/s 131 of the IT Act. The AO has categorically mentioned that show-cause was thereafter issued to the assessee. In absence of any explanation, addition was made.

5.2.3 In its reply before NFAC, the appellant has just submitted list of its shareholders without any further details about the source of such investments ie, creditworthiness of shareholders and also to establish the genuineness of the impugned transactions. Clearly, the onus was on appellant to submit these details before NFAC instead of claiming that all relevant details were filed before the AO, when the AO has clearly stated that these were not submitted before the AD as stated in the assessment order The assessee has claimed before the NFAC that its director had appeared (met the AO), However, the AO had issued notice u/s 131 to the share holder companies asking certain details and their directors to appear before the AD and not the director of assessee company. Moreover, if certain details of these companies were claimed to be submitted before the AO, the same should be submitted before NFAC also enabling examination of the same by the NFAC. However, no such details claimed to be filed before AD (which the AO has denied) were submitted before the NFAC It is necessary to point out that the appellant is a private limited company whose shareholders are limited in number and it should not be difficult to obtain and submit these details. Yet the appellant has failed to discharge its onus before the NFAC. It is noted that substantial amount of premium has been claimed to be paid by the new shareholders se, equity shares of Rs 10/-each were issued at a premium of Rs 990/- per share. Such high valuation details were also requested to be clarified by the appellant, which are necessary details to examine the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, vide hearing notice dated 24.02.2023, it was then pointed out to the appellant-

"Also you have not yet submitted any evidences you want to rely upon to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders till date and hence onus of appellant has not been discharged. Also clarify basis of chargi