IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4252/MUM/2023(AY: 2007–08)

(Physical hearing)

Richa Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer Investment Private Ward 15(3)(1), Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 1601, Bhumiraj Costarica, Mumbai-400020.

Plot no. 1&2, Sector 18, Sanpada Navi Mumbai, 400703.

PAN: AABCR6594G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri. Dharan Gandhi, Adv.

Revenue by Shri. Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 17.10.2023 for the A.Y. 2007-08, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 24.03.2015 passed by Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), Mumbai (in short ‘Ld. AO’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of the order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147, despite being illegal, bad in law, or otherwise void ab-initio on the ground that it appears to be purely based on information received from DGIT (Inv) Mumbai, which being in general nature & not specific and hence liable to be quashed.

2. The hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law by confirming addition w/s 68 of Rs. 81,00,000 received on account of share capital, on the ground that assessee company has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the credit worthiness of the allotees and the genuineness of the transaction.

3. The hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law by indirectly confirming the action of the AO of violation of natural justice by the A.O. by not conducting independent inquiry, ignoring the evidences and proofs and explanations offered during the course of hearing and making addition on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

4. Your appellant craves to add to ammend, alter, delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final date of hearing.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of renting one commercial premise at Vashi to the Citi Bank, had filed its return of income on 05.11.2007, declaring total income of Rs. 1,83,985/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, an information about the assessee was forwarded by the DGIT (Inv.) on 07.03.2014 to the ld. AO, that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Pravin Jain & its group. The investigation wing had taken action against the number of hawala dealers, who provide accommodation entries of the various nature like unsecured loan/advances, bogus share application and bogus sale/purchases. During the course of search action in the case of Shri Pravin Jain, the statement of Shri Chandrashekhar Goyal, one of the brokers were recorded and he admitted that he introduced the parties who were in the need of bogus/non-genuine transactions for expenditure/commission brokerage and accommodation entries for bogus bills. It is also admitted that the commission of 0.25% to 0.50% on the total amount of transaction involved was charged. Further, it is observed that the assessee company had received substantial sums of cash credit in the books of assessee in the nature of Share Premium from following companies:

3. After discussion an addition of Rs. 81,00,000/- was made in the hands of assessee on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and added to the income of assessee, on account of subscription of share capital amount received during the relevant year.

4. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, wherein ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any credible details in respect of share capital to be furnished by the a