IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.2107/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

DCIT, Central Circle 3(3 Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern

111, Park Street, Kolkata- Vs. Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite

700016, West Bengal Ruby, kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AABCR1053N Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &

Ms. Puja Somani, ARs Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 17.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-21(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 06.08.2025 for the AY 2008-09.

2. In ground nos.1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the assessment framed u/s 263/143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 28.03.2014, to be invalid on the ground that the in consequent to invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, although, the appeal of the assessee preferred before the Tribunal against the revisionary order was dismissed by the Tribunal but the issue of invalidity was not the subject matter decision passed by the tribunal and therefore all proceedings consequential to 263 of the Act including assessment framed are invalid and nullity. The issue is not being decided at this stage and left open to be decided at later on if the need arises for the same.

3. The second issue raised by the assessee in ground no.3,4 and 5 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹32,04,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by ignoring the fact that all the evidences were produced during the re-assessment proceedings as well as in the set aside assessment proceedings.

3.1. First of all, we are deciding the issue raised on merit against confirmation of addition by ld. CIT (A).The facts in brief are that the order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was passed on 27.12.2010, assessing the total income at ₹2,15,920/- as against the returned income of ₹5,422/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT vide order dated 22.03.2013, passed the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act, revising the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the Consequential proceedings , the assessee was issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 24.10.2013, which was complied with by the assessee and the details called for were also furnished. The ld. AO noted that the assessee company had received ₹32,04,00,000/- by way of share capital and share premium by issuing equity shares at a face value of ₹10/- each at a premium of ₹190/- per share. During the course of hearing the counsel of the assessee was asked to produce the directors of the assessee company who were directors during the period under consideration.

The summons u/s 131(1) of the Act were also issued to the Directors of the assessee company as well as subscribing companies. In reply, the ex-director of the assessee company Shri Rao Birendra Singh showed up and his statement was recorded u/s 131 of the Act, in which he admitted that there was no basis for calculating the premium per equity share. The ld. AO thereafter noted that the summons issued to the directors of the subscriber companies were returned back unserved and accordingly it was brought to the notice of the counsel of the assessee who submitted that the subscribers had changed their addresses. The ld. AO also noted that in a few cases summon were served. Finally, the AO treated the amount of share capital/premium as bogus and added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/263/143(3)/147 of the Act dated

28.03.2014.

3.2. In the appellate proceedings the