IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1714/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income PHPL Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Tax, Kolkata Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAGCP5155Q Appearances:

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

Assessee represented by : A.K. Tulsyan, FCA &

Rabin Maheshwari, AR.

Date of concluding the hearing : 09-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-December-2025

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [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 2013-14 dated 26.12.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3)

of the Act, dated 31.03.2016.

1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 170 days. A petition seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue giving sequence of events. It is submitted that there was a delay in filling of the Appeal by 158 days. Therefore, it has been requested to condone the delay in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice. 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 the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,50,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act despite the assessee falling to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors?

2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 61,750/- made by the AO for payment of commission in lieu of providing accommodation entry?

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,23,50,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act derived by the assessee from the pre-arranged transactions, since the Investor companies could not be traced at their recorded address. Therefore, there were strong indications that the so-called share applicants were mere paper entities and did not have the requisite capacity to advance the impugned amount. Hence, the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry through private placements with paper entities, which is in the nature of organized tax evasion, and comes under exception as per clause (h) of section 3.1 of CBDT circular no. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, falling under the category of cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries.

4. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the assessee’s premises on 07.11.2013 and on subsequent dates and survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted on the same date and/or on subsequent dates at the premises of the Dollar group. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 showing total income of ₹9,49,590/-. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued which was served upon the assessee and in response to which the assessee filed the return of income showing total income of ₹9,49,590/- which was the same as that originally declared in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act wer