आदेश/ORDER

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

The present appeal arises from the assessment order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(4), Mumbai under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for A.Y. 2012–13, and the appellate order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"], under section 250 of the Act, whereby the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

Facts of the Case

2. The assessee had originally filed its return of income on 26.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 27,550/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing regarding search action in the case of Shri VipulVidur Bhatt, who was stated to be engaged in providing accommodation entries through various entities, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 after obtaining approval under section 151, and notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2017. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 25.04.2017 declaring the same income.

3. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished certain details including ledger accounts, bank statements and particulars of share capital. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee company, incorporated on 12.01.2012, had received share capital and share premium aggregating to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- during F.Y. 2011–12 from five private limited companies, namely -

i. M/s Sampada Chemicals Ltd.,

ii. M/s Lunkad Textiles Pvt. Ltd.,

iii.M/s P. Saji Textiles Ltd., 

iv.M/s Jagvi Developers Pvt. Ltd. and

v. M/s Venkatesh Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., 

and that shares of face value Rs. 10/- were issued at a premium of Rs. 190/- per share.

4. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing and statement of Shri VipulVidur Bhatt recorded under section 132(4), formed a view that the aforesaid companies were entities controlled by the said person and were engaged in providing accommodation entries. The assessee was required to furnish complete details including valuation report, bank statements of investors and justification for charging premium. The Assessing Officer also issued summons under section 131 to the investor companies. However, as recorded by the Assessing Officer, neither the assessee produced the concerned parties nor were complete details furnished. The summons issued to the parties were returned unserved and the assessee failed to produce the investors despite repeated opportunities.

5. The assessee submitted that the share capital was received through banking channels and furnished certain documents such as bank statements and ledger accounts. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. It was further observed that the intrinsic value of shares was negligible and the premium of Rs. 190/- per share was excessive and unreasonable. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money in the guise of share capital and share premium. In this regard, the Assessing Officer recorded, inter alia, that “the assessee has not discharged its onus of producing the investor… the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction remain unproved” and that “the whole transaction in the garb of share capital is only a colourable device used by assessee to make the transaction appear genuine.”

6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee, determining the assessed income at Rs. 3,00,27,550/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated.

7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal b