SAMSKAR FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 2584/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 Samskar Financial Services PCIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Private Limited Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCG3240J Appearances: Assessee represented by : J. N. Gupta, AR. Department represented by : Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 22.07.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [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 2017-18 dated 26.08.2025. 1.1 Though the Registry has not informed that the appeal is barred by limitation, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate but was due to his failing health and there being no one else to take a decision in the event of his serious illness, and that the authorized representative was consulted only after the receipt of the order which caused the delay. After perusing the same,

“The appellant is an NBFC engaged in the business of providing loans and advances and making investment in shares or other securities. During the F. Y 2016-17, it sold to M/s Gajgamini Mercantile Pvt Ltd 22,000 and 8,605 shares of Dynamo Barter P Ltd and Gunina Merchants P Ltd respectively, held since FY 2009-10 as stock-in-trade and also sold 9,145 shares of Jai Prakash Overseas Pvt. Ltd purchased during the FY in question for Rs. 3,97,50,000/-. The AO treated sale proceeds received as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of IT Act though, the appellant submitted reply with ledgers of transaction, physical and e-mail addresses of sellers of shares, purchaser of shares, bank statements, sale bills along with other clarifications sought for. AU stated in its assessment order that the companies whose share were sold by the appellant were not found at the given address. In one case, it was reported that the room at the given address had been locked for the last 3 months, implying that it was open before that. It is quite natural that after a lapse of so many years the companies might have shifted to any other address. The companies, having PAN, ROC registrations, bank accounts cannot be said to be bogus, simply because they could not be located at the known address. But, those companies responded when contacted through mail and confirmed the appellant as a shareholder of their companies. Given an opportunity, we could have located their present positions. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875:(2005)92 ITD 212, the relevant observation being as under:- "..... So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the assessee could not be penalized. In the sales documents, the assessee has made available all necessary details, i.e. the total weight sold as well as the rate per kilogram. Undisputedly, the assessee has maintained complete books of accounts along with day to day and kilogram to kilogram stock register. These were produced before the AO by the assessee. The assessee also submitted stock tally sheet along with the audited accounts. The audit report of the assessee also bears ample testimony in favour of the assessee. The factum of the assessee having maintained stock register and quantitative details have been mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. No mistake were pointed out by the AO in these records maintained by the assessee. Since the purchases have been held to be genuine, the corresponding sales cannot, by any

“2.4.3 Notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued to M/s Jai Prakash Overseas Pvt Ltd requiring to furnish the following details and information - 1. The details (Name, PAN & address) of the share holders of your company during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2.1 Please confirm the number of shares of your company held by M/s Samskar Financial Services Private Limited during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2.2 Please confirm the number of shares of your company sold by M/s Samskar Financial Services Private Limited during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2.3 Please confirm the Name and PAN of the entities to whom the shares of your company sold by M/s Samskar Financial Services Private Limited during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. In response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, M/s Jai Prakash Overseas Pvt Ltd submitted a share transfer Form, as per same 9145 shares were transferred from the assessee to Flourish Consultancy Pvt Ltd on 09.12.2010 which pertains to FY 2010-11. M/s Jai Prakash Overseas Pvt Ltd did not furnish any written submission or details as required vide notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act. Subsequently, a physical verification reference was sent to the Verification Unit for obtaining information from the aforementioned entity. As per report received from the Verification Unit, the office of M/s Jai Prakash Overseas Pvt Ltd was found locked and key, it was gathered the said office was locked and key since last three months. 2.4.4 The replies furnished by the assessee were perused and considered. As already discussed above, credible information received in the case of M/s Gajanan Traders (Prop. Shamir Dutta) is engaged in the business of Hardware goods. Reportedly, on perusal of bank statement maintained with Axis Bank bearing Account No. 916020003207589 by the said entity, it was noticed that there is abnormally huge transaction within a short span of time. Later on, the said bank account was closed. In order to verify financial credentials of the company notice u/s 131 of the IT Act,

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata