SPRING CITY NIRMAN LLP (ERSTWHILE PAKS TRADE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AccountantMember and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JudicialMember ITA No.1614/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Spring City Nirman LLP (Erstwhile Paks Trade Centre Private Limited)...........................……….……Appellant C/o SDP & Associates, 46C Chowringhee Road, Flat – 14G, W.B -700071. [PAN: AASFP8849E] vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata…..………..….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: ShriMiraj D Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :April 28th, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28th,2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 17.06.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the A.Y 2012-13. 2. The only issue raised is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.4,31,36,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act on account share capital and share premium. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee that the assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring nil income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that during F.Y. 2011-12, the assessee issued 10,78,400

ITA No.1614/Kol/2025 shares of Rs.1/- each at a premium of Rs.39/- per share. On allotment of these shares the assessee received share premium of Rs.4,20,57,600/- . In order to verify the genuineness of the transactions and to verify identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, the Assessing Officer issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the director of the assessee company as well as notices u/s 133(6) to the subscribers. The Assessing Officer observed that that neither the assessee company complied with the summons u/s 131 nor filed any details of shares issued during the year. The Assessing Officer therefore made an addition of Rs.4,31,36,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) after taking into the reply and submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has issued shares to 7 group concerns and the details of which are in page 5 and 6 as extracted in a table by the ld. CIT(A) which is as follows:

Intentionally left blank

ITA No.1614/Kol/2025

ITA No.1614/Kol/2025 5. The ld. CIT(A) noted that a sum of Rs.3.79,38,500/- was received in the FY 2010-11 which comprised share application money of Rs.98,00,000/- and advance of Rs.2,81,38,500/-. In the FY 2011-12, a sum of Rs.51,97,500/- was received. With the consent of the parties, the assessee allotted 10,78,400 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs.30/- to them in the FY 2011-12 relevant to the AY 2012-13. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that the subscribers companies belonged to the same group and there were common directors on the assessee and the subscribers companies. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that the Assessing Officer in order to indepedently verify the transactions issued notices u/s 133(6) and the subscribers confirmed the transactions and also filed relevant details/documents and in respect of the source of fund for subscription of shares, the relevant bank statement to prove the genuineness of the transactions were also submitted. The Assessing Officer issued summons u/s.131 of the Act to the director of the assessee who appeared before him on the scheduled date but his statement was not recorded. The ld. CIT(A) in para 1.9 noted that considering the factual matrix, the identity, creditworthiness of subscribers and genuineness of the transactions were not in doubt and the subscribers are group companies and in 5 out of 7 cases, assessments for A.Y 2012-13 were made u/s 143(3) of the Act. But despite recording factual findings as discussed above , the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records as placed before us, we find that the the assessee submitted all the details/evidences before ld. CIT(A) qua the share subscribers and all these evidences were forwarded to the AO verification. The AO submitted the remand report on 25.08.2023 wherein the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee has furnished all the information/evidences/details and in para 2, it was stated that as per 4

ITA No.1614/Kol/2025 the Inspector’s report, the contributors companies were found to be in existence in the disclosed addresses and all were the existing companies. However, the ld. CIT(A) in the last para dismissed the appeal of the assessee which is quite contradictory and rediculous. We further note that to establish the identity & creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transactions, the assessee filed all the relevant details in respect of each share subscribers such as MCA Master Data, ITR Acknowledgment, Audited Accounts, Share Application Form, Share Allotment Letter, Ledger of share applicants, Confirmation of Accounts, sank Statement, Assessment order u/s 143(3)/147and source of Funds etc. We also note that Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal was the director in the assessee as well as all on the 7 share subscribing companies and all these companies are controlled & managed by common director and thus, they are the group companies. All the transactions were done through banking channels and the companies are duly registered in Registrar of Companies (ROC), the names, addresses and PANs of subscriber companies were given, the details of share application received by the assessee are mentioned at page 8 and 9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). We hold that in the course of the remand proceedings, the subscriber companies had filed all the details, documents and evidences in respect of the subscription of shares and the Assessing Officer did not find any fault or defect in the said details provided by the assessee. The assessee has duly discharged its onus cast upon t it by the statute by submitting all the relevant details to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. CIT(A) though considering the remand report and relevant details submitted by the assessee simply confirmed the addition which is not sustainable. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s

ITA No.1614/Kol/2025 Navnita Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in GA/1/2025 dated 19.11.2025 wherein the Hon’bleCalcutta High Court has held as under: “From the records, it is seen that the assessee/respondent is a Non- Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and has produced registration certificate, Form 2 filed before the ROC to establish that it is not a shell company and has produced all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer and the AssessingOfficer has noted that the assessee has received share application money of Rs. 1,21,50,000/- by issuing 6075 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs.1990/- per share to M/s. Zeus Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also furnished the details of share subscribers from whom money was raised and even furnished the details of the Managing Director of the subscribing company, but the assessee has failed to encourage the Managing Director of the subscribing company who has not appeared before the Assessing Officer under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company being the NBFC has produced all the documents and information not only before the Assessing Officer but also before the Tribunal and the quantum of tax is less than Rs.2 crores. This appeal falls within the rigors of the Circular No.9/2024 dated 17th September, 2024 as the monetary limit of the tax effect is much less than Rs.2 crores and as such, the appeal is not admitted and hence, the same is dismissed. IA No.GA/1/2025 also stands dismissed.” 7. Considering the above, we note that the said addition of Rs.4,31,36,000/- u/s 68 is unjustified. Therefore we are inclined to set aside the appellate order and direct the AO to delete the addition. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 28th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rajesh Kumar] Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated: 28.04.2026. RS

ITA No.1614/Kol/2025

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches