AEROLINK VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2186/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Aerolink Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata C/o Subhas Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [PAN: AAKCA1490M] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Saurabh Dhanuka (appeared partly in person) Respondent by : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Appeal) [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 15.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed return of income declaring a total loss of Rs.2,293/-. The case of the Assessee was

ITA No.2186/Kol/2025 Aerolink Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y: 2012-13 selected for scrutiny through CASS on the reasons “to examine Large Share premium received”. An Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 19.03.2015 by making addition of Rs.1,79,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital raised by the Assessee during the year under consideration. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 19.03.2015, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 15.09.2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As Against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.09.2025, Assessee preferred present Appeal. 3. The Assessee in person submitted the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the first Appeal of the Assessee on the ground that the Directors have not appeared in response to summon issued u/s 131 of the Act, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that non- appearance of the Directors cannot be sole basis to draw adverse interference. Further, the Director of the Assessee submitted that he is ready and willing to produce all the Directors of the Assessee’s Company as well as the Directors of the Share Applicant Company for examination before the Assessing Officer if the issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer. Thus, sought for remanding the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for de-no adjudication of the issue.

ITA No.2186/Kol/2025 Aerolink Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y: 2012-13 4. Per Contra, though the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities submitted that, the Assessee has failed to produce Directors of the Assessee’s Company as well as Directors of the Share Applicant Company for examination and miserably failed to establish three ingredients of Section 68 namely, identity, genuineness and credit-worthiness of the source of fund introduced in the nature of Share Capital. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that the Assessee has not discharged the onus of explaining the source of the Share Capital in question, further observed that, none of Directors of the Assessee’s Company or the Directors of the Share Applicant Company were produced for examination. 6. Now the Director of the Assessee appeared in person before us undertaken that he will be ready and willing to produce all the Directors and also prove the genuineness of the transaction. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. We hereby clarify that the burden is on the Assessee to produce Directors of the Assessee’s Company as well as Directors of the Share Applicant Company for examination and the Assessee shall also discharge the onus by explaining the source of the Share Capital

ITA No.2186/Kol/2025 Aerolink Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y: 2012-13 in question, failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to draw adverse interference in accordance with law while framing the de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard before passing the Assessment Order.

Order pronounced on 22.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22.06.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA