IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.152/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

M/s Canary Tradecom Private DCIT, Central Circle 2(3)

Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 5^th Floor, 4, Fairlie Place, Vs. 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass Dalhousie, Kolkata G.P.O.

Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AADCC5614N Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR Date of hearing: 16.04.2026 Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-26 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.01.2025 for the AY 2009-10.

2. The only issue pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is raised in ground no. 2 which is against the order of Ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹2,45,00,000/- as made by the Ld. AO in respect of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit.

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

15.07.2010, declaring total income at ₹1,490/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 14.11.2011. The assessment was accordingly, framed u/s 147/ 143(2) of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2011, assessing the total income at ₹

24,740/-.

4. The Ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment records observed that the Ld. AO has not conducted proper enquiry regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the assessment order has been passed in a mechanically without application of mind and thus, the order passed is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued and finally, the assessment was revised vide order dated 11.03.2014, passed u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AO in the set aside proceedings, issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire, which was returned unserved by postal authorities. The Ld. AO again issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.09.2014, which was again returned by the postal authorities. Thus, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee even to the show cause notices. Therefore, the Ld. AO framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act when the assessee failed to respond to various queries. The Ld. AO also noted in the assessment order that the subscribers, who invested the money in the assessee company also did not turn up for examination on oath u/s 131 of the Act and therefore, genuineness of the share capital and share premium remained unverified. Finally, addition was made to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) restored the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for re-adjudication by directing the Ld. AO to frame the same after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in the original assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO has examined the issue of share capital/ share premium. We note that the assessee has furnished before the Ld. AO, the copy of ITR, audited accounts, share allotment letter, bank statement, copy of Pan card, source of source certificate, which are available from page no.105 to 184. We even note thatin the original re-assessment proceedings, the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were also replied, a copy of which is available at page no. 101 to 104. We note that the shares were subscribed by new applicant M/s M/s Sarang Viniyog Limited and the copy of response filed u/s 133(6) of the Act by the party is available at page no.103 of the Paper Book. We observe form the said letter that the subscriber has explained the payments through HDFC Bank vide c