IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 409/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2012-13)

Tirumala Relcon Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1)

Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 51, Shakespeare Sarani, 2^nd Chowringhee Square, Vs.

Floor,Kolkata-700017, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AADCT7159D Assessee by : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 26.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 05.02.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.12.2022 for the AY 2012-13.

02. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹15,81,84,000/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act.

03. The facts in brief are that the assessee files return of income on

30.09.2012, disclosing loss of ₹ 3,92,370/-, which were not processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along with questionnaire. The assessee replied to the questionnaires issued by the ld. AO by furnishing various evidences / details as called for by the ld. AO. During the instant assessment year the assessee has issued equity shares thereby raising share capital/share premium amounting to Rs. 15,81,84,000/-. The AO for independent verification of transactions also issued notices u/s 133(6) to the subscribers and also issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the director of the assessee company. The notices issued u/s 133(6) were duly replied by the subscribers by furnishing all the details and information along with evidences as called for by the AO. Shri Govind Garg appeared on 24.02.2015 before the AO in compliance summons u/s 131 of the Act but his statement was not recorded as is evident from the letter dated 10.03.2015 filed before the AO. Finally , the ld. AO made the addition of ₹15,81,84,000/-/-after rejecting the contentions of the assesse by treating the share capital / share premium as unexplained cash credit on the ground that summons issued u/s 131 of the Act were not complied with besides making other additions.

04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allow the appeal of the assessee by giving a very comprehensive finding that the assessee has prove the identity, creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions, which read as under:-

“9. At the assessment stage the appellant had produced several evidences to establish identity & creditworthiness of M/s Purvanchal Vinimay Pvt Ltd. & M/s Omni Vyapaar Pvt Ltd. as well the genuineness of the transactions those took place among the appellant company and these investors. Assessment order itself carries the evidence of submission of such details, as pointed out by me in my letter to the AO, reproduced herein above. AO brushed aside these to focus on the fact of non-production of the directors of M/s Purvanchal Vinimay Pvt Ltd. & M/s Omni Vyapaar Pvt Ltd. However, such non-production of the directors of investing companies alone can never be a basis of suspicion, let alone an addition u/s 68 of the Act.

9.1. Further, it is a case pertaining to AY 2012- 13, that is before the introduction of proviso to section 68 of the Act. Nonetheless, the appellant has explained source of source at this stage. From the assessment order it appears that explanations were put forward before AO, as well. In my communications to the AO, the same were referred to for his comments. Despite several opportunities the AO chose not to reply.

9.2. However, for a fair trial, submissions made before me were sent to the AO for his verification and examination. As already pointed out, despite several opportunities the AO chose not to reply.”

05. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before th