##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

AND

SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

ITA No.934/KOL/2025

(Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd.

C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, ITO, Ward 7(1)

Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7,

2, Garstin Place, 2^nd floor, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, Fifth Floor,

No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal

West Bengal-700001

(Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AAGCA1408B

Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR

Revenue by : Shri Manas Mondal, DR

Date of hearing: 16.10.2025

Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of

the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as

the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 17.02.2025 for the AY 2008-09.

2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the ground of appeal is

against the confirmation of addition of ₹4,28,70,000/- by the ld. CIT

(A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of share capital/ share premium

raised by the assessee during the year by treating the same as

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income

on 16.05.2008, showing total income at ₹157/-. The return was

Page | 2

ITA No. 934/KOL/2025

Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd.; A.Y. 2008-09

processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee

was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and assessment was accordingly

framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 15.05.2010,

assessing the total income at ₹18,524/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT,

exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and revised the assessment

dated 05.05.2010, on the ground that the ld. AO has not made any

proper enquiries as regards to share capital/ share premium and

directed the ld. AO to frame the assessment afresh after affording a

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AO

accordingly issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and along with

questionnaire and called upon the assessee to furnish all the details

qua the share subscribers. Complying with the said questionnaire the

assessee submitted before the ld. AO all the information qua the

share subscribers comprising names, addresses, PAN Numbers,

copies audited balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, audited

reports, bank accounts and confirmations etc. The ld. AO also issued

summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of the shareholding

companies. However, none replied. Thereafter the added the same

to the income of the assessee. The matter went in before the ld. CIT

(A) and the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition. Finally the Tribunal

set aside the issue to the file of the ld. AO for fresh examination.

Accordingly, opportunity was granted to the assessee on 29.01.2021,

31.01.2021 to file the details qua the share application money of

₹4,28,70,000/- and proved the identity and creditworthiness of the

investors and genuineness of the share transactions. The assessee

duly filed the same details comprising names, addresses of the

subscribing companies, ITRs, Bank accounts of the investor

companies, audited balance sheets etc. The ld. AO noted that the

assessee has received share capital from 14 private entities.

Page | 3

ITA No. 934/KOL/2025

Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd.; A.Y. 2008-09

Therefore, the ld. AO, in order to independently verify the

transactions, notices u/s 132(6) of the Act were issued to all 14

companies which were duly delivered and also complied with by five

companies. But in respect of remaining 9 companies no responses

were received. Thereafter, the ld. AO discussed each and every

subscriber. The ld. AO noted that though the companies have funds

available with them but the source of funds were only remittances

other entities and these subscribing company has no recurring

income. Thus, the ld. AO noted that the investor company has filed

every negligible taxable income and therefore, there is no

justification for investments made in the assessee company. Besides,

there was no just