BABUL FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the share premium amounting to Rs. 96,68,47,860/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and thereby adding the same to the total income of the assessee.

That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in upholding the unjustified addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the share capital amounting to Rs.

That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,88,900/- as taxable income and thereby adding the same to the total income of the assessee.

That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 30.03.2012 declaring the total income at ₹65,880/-. Due to continuous non-compliance to the statutory notices, letters, and summons issued to the directors u/s 131 of the Act calling for details and evidences regarding the share capital introduced, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') completed the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. AO added ₹1,09,64,140/- as unexplained share capital, ₹96,68,47,860/- as unexplained share premium, and ₹1,88,900/- as long-term capital gain, assessing the total income at ₹97,80,66,780/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee consistently failed to comply with the various notices and summons issued by the Ld. AO and also failed to adduce supporting proofs and evidences to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and premium. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that both before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), the orders were ex parte even though it is mentioned that the assessment order is made u/s 143(3) of the Act. There were non-compliances before the Ld. AO. As regards the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), at page 6 para 4 of the order the submissions filed by the assessee are mentioned but the same are not even discussed. The Ld. AR submitted that the submissions may require factual verification and requested for remand to the Ld. AO.

The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the same may be confirmed.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and are of the view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of facts. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th July, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order