ITO, WARD- 13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VISHAL ENCLAVE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 01.12.2025 for the AY 2008-09.

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 therefore delay, being for sufficient reasons ,may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

Page 2 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 order was passed u/s 263 of the Act on 07.05.2010, setting aside the assessment framed by the AO to the file of the ld. AO. The ld. PCIT directed the ld. AO in the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act i)to examine the genuineness and source of source of capital in respect of each and every shareholders by conducting independent enquiries by examining the bank accounts to find out the money trail .The PCIT also directed the ld. A.O. to examine the directors as well as examine the circumstances which necessitated the change in directorship if applicable. He should examine them on oath to verify their credentials as director and reach a logical conclusion regarding the controlling interest. Besides the ld. AO to examine the source of realization from liquidation of assests shown in the balance sheet. Accordingly, the ld. AO issued notice us/ 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire and counsel of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished all the details and documents as called for. The ld. AO stated in the assessment order that the case was discussed with the counsel of the assessee and heard. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee produced the books of accounts such like cash book, ledger along with original bank statements, which were also examined and verified. The AO also issued summons u/s 131 of the Act on 21.07.2014 to both the directors of the assessee company which were not complied with as no one appeared in compliance. The ld. AO thereafter noted that the assessee was incorporated with a capital of ₹ 1.00 lacs and further raised share capital amounting to ₹88,70,00,000/- by issuing 8,87,000/- equity Page 3 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 shares of face value of 10 each at a premium of ₹90/- per share by private placement. The ld. AO noted that the assessee issued share capital to 14 subscribers thereby receiving ₹8,87,00,000/-. The ld. AO also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the subscribers which were duly complied and replied along with evidences as called for by the AO. The ld. AO also issued summon to the principal officers of the assessee company. However, the same was not replied and therefore, the necessary verification could not be done qua the 14 subscribers. The ld. AO noted that the share capital reserve, surplus, net worth, turnover, capital, resources of the assessee company remained unexplained which were necessary for investors to consider before taking decision on investment in shares in the assessee company. as no prudent person will invest in the assessee company having no business/potential financial strength. The ld. AO thereafter noted that the subscribers were conduit companies and therefore the assessee used its own money in the garb of share capital and share premium and brought back into the books of accounts. Finally, the ld. AO treated the said amount credited in the books of account of ₹8,88,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/263/147 of the Act dated 30.3.2014.

“I have carefully considered the assessment order passed under sections 143(3)/263/147, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, the additional Page 4 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 grounds filed, and the detailed submissions made from time to time. I have also perused the documents placed on record, including the set of evidences filed vide Annexures A to P, which comprise confirmations from shareholders, copies of their income‑tax returns, audited balance sheets, bank statements evidencing the flow of funds, and other supporting materials. These annexures collectively establish the identity of the shareholders, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions. The matter is adjudicated as under. On the addition of Rs.8,88,00,000/- under section 68, it is noted that the appellant had furnished complete particulars of the shareholders, including their PAN, incometax returns, audited balance sheets, and bank statements. The shareholders also responded to notices issued under section 133(6). The Assessing Officer has not disputed the existence of these companies nor brought any adverse material to show that the documents filed were false or fabricated. The addition has been made primarily on the ground that the directors did not appear in response to summons under section 131 and that the companies were name-lenders. In my view, mere non-appearance of directors or shareholders cannot, by itself, justify addition when documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness is on record. The appellant has relied upon several judicial pronouncements of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and other authorities to contend that the addition under section 68 is unsustainable. The relevant observations are reproduced below and compared with the facts of the present case. In Crystal Networks (P) Ltd. v. CIT [353 ITR 171 (Cal)], the Hon’ble High Court held: “The failure of the person to turn up pursuant to the summons issued to any witness is immaterial when the material documents made available should have been accepted… The important thing is to prove as to whether the said cash credit was received… When it was found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on facts having examined the documents that the advance given by the creditors have been established, the Tribunal should not have ignored this fact finding.” In the present case, the appellant has furnished confirmations, PAN, audited accounts, and bank statements of all shareholders (vide Annexures A to P). The Assessing Officer has ignored these evidences and drawn adverse inference merely because directors did not appear in response to summons under section 131. As in Crystal Networks, the non-appearance of individuals cannot override documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. In CIT v. Dataware Pvt. Ltd. [Cal HC, ITA 263/2011], the Court observed:

Page 5 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 “The Assessing Officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admittedly the creditor himself is an income-tax assessee… So long as it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established.” Here too, the appellant’s shareholders are income-tax assessees, their returns and balance sheets were filed, and transactions were routed through account-payee cheques. The AO did not verify with the jurisdictional AOs of the shareholders, nor did he show that their returns were rejected. The ratio of Dataware Pvt. Ltd. squarely applies, and the addition under section 68 cannot be sustained. In VSP Steel P. Ltd. (formerly Tikmani Metal P. Ltd.) [ITA 741/Kol/2014], the Tribunal held: “There is no mandate in law that the assessee has to prove the source of the source of share applicants… The assessee had duly discharged its complete onus by furnishing requisite details… The entire addition has been made by the AO based upon suspicion, surmises and conjectures and not upon proper evaluation and appraisal of the evidence.” In the present case, the AO insisted upon production of directors and sought to examine “source of source,” but the appellant had already discharged its burden by filing Annexures A to P. The AO’s conclusion that the companies were name-lenders is based on suspicion rather than material evidence. The principle laid down in VSP Steel applies directly. Further, in PCIT v. Naina Distributors (P) Ltd. [Cal HC, ITAT/113/2023], the Court held that even failure to respond to summons under section 131 cannot invite addition under section 68 when documentary evidence is on record. Similarly, in PCIT v. Hirak Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. [Cal HC, ITAT/242/2023], the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that once the Tribunal had appreciated the factual position and found identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness established, no substantial question of law arose. These rulings reinforce the appellant’s contention that adverse inference cannot be drawn merely on non-appearance. Applying the above precedents, it is clear that the appellant has discharged its initial burden under section 68 by producing confirmations, PAN, audited accounts, and bank statements of shareholders (Annexures A to P). The AO has not disproved these evidence, nor has he conducted independent verification with the jurisdictional AOs of the shareholders. The addition has been made solely on the ground of nonappearance of directors and a general allegation of name-lending, which is contrary to the settled law laid down in

Page 6 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 Crystal Networks, Dataware Pvt. Ltd., VSP Steel, and the recent Calcutta High Court rulings. The ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd. (ITA No. 2436/Del/2015) is also directly applicable. In that case, the Tribunal deleted addition of share application money where the assessee had furnished confirmations, incometax returns, bank statements, PAN, and balance sheets of shareholders, but the AO doubted genuineness merely because the shareholders were not found at the given addresses. The Tribunal held that once the assessee discharges its primary onus, the burden shifts to the AO, and mere non-appearance or inspector’s report cannot override documentary evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [216 CTR 195] has also held that if share application money is received from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO, the department is free to proceed against them but cannot treat it as undisclosed income of the assessee. Relevant paras of the decision are reproduced as under: “12. During the year the assessee had received share application money of Rs. 1 crore in total from the following parties: 1. Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 15,00,000/- 2. Attractive Finlease Ltd. – Rs. 15,00,000/- 3. Ashish Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 15,00,000/- 4. Hum Turn Marketing Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 10,00,000/- 5. Sri Nirandanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 10,00,000/- 6. PFI Soft-Tech Pvt. Ltd. – Rs. 10,00,000/

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 complete address, PAN, their ledger account showing the amount received and thereafter transfer of allotment, their balance sheet etc. The ld. A.R in this regard referred to page Nos. 25, 27, 28 to 53, 144 to 166, and 173 to 237 of the paper book. He also referred to page Nos. 299 to 305 of the paper book which are copies of web extracts downloaded MCA showing the existence of 8 shareholder companies showing their active status as on 1.3.2013 along with filing of balance sheet upto 31.3.2012. The ld. A.R submitted that vide letter dated 22.3.2013 [page Nos. 144 and 145 paper book] filed before the AO the assessee had submitted further evidence in respect of impugned share capital of Rs. 1 crore along with latest addresses of shareholder companies. He contended that all the investors are companies and regular Incometax assessees. Thus merely because these companies were not found on the given address the AO was not justified in doubting the claimed investments without examining the documents filed by the assessee in support of the claim. He placed reliance on the following decisions: CIT v. Fairinvest Ltd (83 CCH 265, DHC); CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd (333 ITR 119, Del); CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd (307 ITR 334); CIT v. Winstral Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd (330 ITR 603, DHC); CIT v. Expo Auto (P) Ltd (361 ITR 155, DHC); CIT v. Expo Globe India Ltd (361 ITR 477, DHC); CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd (330 ITR 603, DHC); Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 212/2012, Del). 15. The ld. D.R, on the other hand, tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the issue. He submitted that the AO made his full efforts to locate the above named shareholders on the given address and he directed the Inspector to visit the address but these shareholders were not found on the given address. The assessee has thus failed to even establish the identity of the shareholders. 16. Considering the above submissions, we find that the assessee had furnished all the necessary evidence before the AO as discussed hereinabove in the submissions of the ld. A.R supported with evidence in the shape of a paper book filed on behalf of the assessee and thus the assessee had discharged its primary onus to establish the identity and credit worthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transactions. This evidence included confirmations of the share applicants, their income-tax returns, their bank statements, their complete addresses with PANs, their ledger accounts showing the amount received and thereafter transfer of allotment, and their balance sheets, etc. The onus thereafter was shifted on the AO to examine those evidences but the AO has made the addition simply on the basis that the shareholders were not found on the given address. The assessee had furnished substantial evidence to establish that these shareholders were assessed to tax and on the website of MCA the existence of the shareholder companies were shown as on 1.3.2013. The assessee had also furnished their balance sheet upto 31.3.2012. These facts of the case indicate that the AO has failed to discharge his onus in rebutting the evidence filed by the assessee in support of establishing the genuineness of the claimed receipt of share application money. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Page 8 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [216 CTR 195] has been pleased to hold that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. Again in the case of CIT v. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd [ITA No. 212/2012, Del], the assessee had furnished confirmations, letters, their PANs, bank statements, affidavits and balance sheets of the share applicant, but had shown its inability to produce the share applicants. The AO consequent thereto, did not conduct any inquiry and closed the proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to approve the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition. We thus respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions by the ld. A.R delete the addition. Accordingly, the grounds are allowed.” Applying these principles to the present case, it is clear that the appellant has discharged its burden under section 68 by filing Annexures A to P, which establish the three ingredients—identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The AO has failed to rebut these evidence and has relied only on non- appearance of directors. In view of the binding precedents of the jurisdictional High Court and the ITAT, the addition of Rs.8,88,00,000/- under section 68 cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. On the disallowance of Rs.2,13,375/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D, it is observed that the revisionary order under section 263 did not direct any enquiry on this issue. The Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the order under section 263, travelled beyond the scope of directions and made disallowance under section 14A. Such action is beyond jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Moreover, the appellant has contended that no exempt income was earned during the year, and the disallowance is therefore contrary to settled law. In view of these facts, the disallowance under section 14A is deleted. On the disallowance of Rs.10,000/- towards donation, the appellant failed to produce supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer. Even at the appellate stage, no material has been placed to substantiate the claim. In absence of proof, the disallowance of Rs.10,000/- is confirmed. On the addition of Rs.4,235/- as undisclosed income, the appellant has not disputed the factual finding that such income was omitted from the return. The addition is therefore sustained. On the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D, it is settled law that such interest is consequential and mandatory. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute interest, if any, while giving effect to this appellate order. Decision Page 9 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The addition of Rs.8,88,00,000/- under section 68 and the disallowance of Rs.2,13,375/- under section 14A are deleted. The disallowance of Rs.10,000/- towards donation and the addition of Rs.4,235/- as undisclosed income are confirmed. Interest under sections 234B and 234D shall be recomputed accordingly” 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee during the set aside assessment proceedings furnished all the details and evidences qua the share subscribers before the ld. AO comprising PANs, Income Tax Returns, audited balance sheets and bank statements, etc. We note that the shareholders have also responded to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the AO by filing all the evidences and details as called for in the enquiry letters. We note that the ld. AO has made the addition purely on the ground that there was no compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and therefore, the necessary verification could not be carried out.

Page 10 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 5.1. Having perused the details furnished by the share subscribers, we observe that each of them held valid PAN and CIN and the proof of service of notices u/s 133(6), established the identity of the share subscribers. It is also observed that, the share subscribers were regular income-tax filers and their financials demonstrated sufficient strength to justify the amounts subscribed by them. The details of their net worth vis-à-vis the amounts paid by them is noted to be as under:

Sl No. Name of the Shareholder Amount Networth 1 AbhilashiniCommosales Pvt. Ltd. 4,50,000 10,49,00,000 2 Banke bihariVyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 35,00,000 2,91,00,000 3 Bright Tracom Pvt. Ltd. 40,00,000 4,11,50,000 4 Decent Professional services Pvt. Ltd. 20,00,000 2,49,07,744 5 Deora Finance Pvt. Ltd 57,00,000 29,80,01,588 6 Jai Mata Texo Traders Pvt. Ltd 35,00,000 7,18,14,900 7 Lahoti Agro Pvt. Ltd 40,00,000 2,01,57,000 8 Lambodar Commotrade Pvt. Ltd 25,00,000 7,15,00,000 9 Lifeline Properties Pvt. Ltd 10,00,000 4,12,50,000 10 Lingard Mercantile Pvt. Ltd 25,00,000 1,60,00,000 11 Luxo Foams Pvt. Ltd 31,00,000 5,61,30,000 12 Maa Tara Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd 22,00,000 2,46,00,000 13 Paropkar Consultants Pvt. Ltd 33,50,000 15,45,00,000 14 Promising Vinimay Pvt. Ltd 45,00,000 8,98,00,000 15 Pyramid Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. 32,00,000 5,39,00,000 16 Sanghash Commercials Pvt. Ltd 45,00,000 6,04,50,090 17 Shree Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 35,00,000 6,18,00,000 18 Sindhu Tracom Pvt. Ltd. 50,00,000 8,39,00,000 19 Sterling Commosales Pvt. Ltd. 30,00,000 7,33,92,874 20 Sydney Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 43,00,000 11,90,50,000

5.2. We have perused the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Omkar Parivahan Finance Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 227 of 2024) dated 01.01.2025 wherein it is held that, the fact that the networth is much higher than the investments made by the share subscribers, their creditworthiness stands established. The share subscribers are found to have also furnished their bank statements, evidencing the source of payments along with a separate explanation regarding the same. It is observed that none of the lower authorities were able to point out any specific falsity therein. We thus note that the assessee was able to discharge its initial onus of establishing the genuineness of the transactions as well. It is thus noted that the three ingredients laid down in Section 68 of the Act was met by the assessee. 5.3. It is observed that the ld. AO had laid much emphasis on the non- compliance of summons by the share subscribers to the enquiry being conducted after more than seven (7) years from the date of transactions. The Page 12 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 ld. AR has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Jealous Commercial Private Limited (308 taxman 80) wherein on similar facts, it was held that mere non-appearance of directors before the AO cannot prompt the AO to render a finding that no satisfactory explanation u/s 68 was offered by the assessee. The relevant findings are as follows: “18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the shareholders who applied for the shares in the assessee stands identified. The source of funds stands satisfied. The assessee reflected the entire issue and allotment of shares at a premium in its books of accounts and submitted the same contemporaneously to the statutory authority, namely, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 19. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced all such relevant materials with regard to the transaction in question. The absence/non- appearance of theDirectors of the assessee before the Assessing Officer would not prompt the Assessing Officer, to render a finding that no explanation within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act of 1961 was offered by the assessee particularly in the factual matrix of the present case. 20. In such circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law involved for the purpose of consideration by this Court as contended on behalf of the appellant.” 5.4. We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Balaka Vinimay Pvt Ltd (GA No. 2 of 2025) dated 21.07.2025. In this case also, the assessee and the share subscribers had furnished all the relevant details in support of the share application monies before the AO. The AO however disbelieved the explanation since there was non-compliance of summons u/s 131 by the directors of the share subscribers. Taking note of the practical difficulty that the assessee cannot be called upon to produce the share subscribers after a gap of 10 to 12 years, and having regard to the documents placed on record, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the order of this Tribunal deleting the addition u/s 68 by observing as under: “…..It is not in dispute that the assessee had filed complete details of each of the shares to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transactions was proved by producing copies of the confirmation letters, bank statements, audited financial statements, identity proofs, source of funds, investments by the share subscribers in the assessee company, replies which were given to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act and various other details to show that most of the share subscribers have also passed through scrutiny proceedings. These details were placed before the learned Tribunal by way of paper books in three volumes. The learned Tribunal has in extenso referred to the details which have been furnished. Furthermore, the shareholders have responded to the Page 13 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 notice under Section 133(6) of the Act directly to the Assessing Officer and their respective assessment orders framed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act were also placed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned Tribunal. Thus, it is evident that the assessee has produced all the documents before the Assessing Officer not once but twice and the authority except indicating a theory of routine entries of paper companies/shell companies, no discrepancies had been pointed out in the financials of the alleged cash creditors. Furthermore, all the share subscribers are private limited companies duly registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and have been furnishing the audited financial statements in the portal of the Ministry. That apart, the share subscribers have also demonstrated that there was immediate source of funds available in the bank accounts which had been applied for making investments in the equity shares of the assessee company. One more particular important factor which was lost sight of is, that the matter pertains to the financial year 2007-08 and the scrutiny assessment was completed on 27.09.2021. After a gap of 13/14 years, after actual transactions had taken place and final assessment orders had been passed, proceedings was initiated. Thus, the predicament faced by the assessee was taken note by the learned Tribunal and it had observed that it is practically difficult that after a gap of 10 to 12 years, the assessee can call for the share subscribers who invested long time before and there is every possibility that the shareholders would have sold their equities and new shareholders would have taken their place. The learned Tribunal referred to the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of True- Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.1158/Kol/2023, wherein almost identical issue of unexplained share capital from various share subscribers came up for adjudication and after considering the factual aspect and following the judicial pronouncements, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. The revenue preferred an appeal before this Court in ITAT/203/2024 and by order dated 25th April, 2025, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Thus, we find that the factual issues have been thoroughly adjudicated by the Tribunal apart from noting that the assessee had been put to multiple levels of scrutiny and the assessee was able to bring on record documents in support of their claim. Therefore, we are of the view that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act was rightly ordered to be deleted. For the above reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.” 5.5. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Bright Commodeal Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 162 of 2025) dated 28.08.2025, wherein, it was held as under:

Page 14 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 “We have perused the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for allowing the assessee's appeal. It is seen that the assessing officer issued notice under Section 133 (6) of the Act to the investing companies and both the parties have complied with the said notice and furnished the requisite details. Summons under Section 131 of the Act was issued to the Director of the assessee company to be personally present and also to produce the Directors of the investing company for examination of genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal noted that the Directors appeared pursuant to the summons but the assessing officer wrongly recorded that the Directors of the assessee company failed to appear in response to the summons issued under 131 of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the factual position and noted that the assessee has filed evidences as called for by the assessing officer in respect of the assessee as well as the investing companies. The evidences filed comprised of income tax returns, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account, audited report, bank statement and master data in respect of each of the subscribers. Furthermore, both the parties have submitted their reply pursuant to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. After noting these facts, the Learned Tribunal held that the assessing officer as well as the CIT(A) did not cause any verification or conduct any enquiry into the evidences which were filed by the assessee and merely harped on non- compliance of the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act, which is factually incorrect. Learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT -Vs- Orissa Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) as well as the decision of this Court in Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- CIT, (353) ITR 171 (Cal). The Tribunal also noted the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO -Vs- M/S Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA/282/Kol/2012) wherein the factual position was also similar to that of the case of the assessee. Thus, we find that the facts have been examined by the Tribunal and the conclusion has been arrived at and therefore, no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, arises for consideration in this appeal.” 5.6. In so far as the analysis of the assessee’s return of income undertaken by the ld. AO is concerned, we are of the view that the same was of no relevance to ascertain the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors. In the instant case before us, the assessee has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but ld. AO has not commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Besides the investors have also furnished complete details/evidences before the ld. AO which proved the identity, creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of the transactions. The case of the assessee is found to be supported by series ofdecisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court namely, PCIT v. Ambe Tex Fab (India) (P.) Ltd (173 taxmann.com 392), PCIT v. Delta Dealers (P.) Ltd (173 taxmann.com 911), Page 15 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 PCIT v. Goodview Marketing Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 114 of 2024), PCIT v. Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 286 of 2024), PCIT v. True Man Consultants Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 203 of 2024), PCIT v. Hirak Vyapaar Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 242 of 2023), PCIT v. One Point Commercial (P.) Ltd (478 ITR 183) and PCIT v. Mainak Suppliers Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 253 of 2023). Under these facts and circumstances and considering underlying facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as discussed above, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) by directing the ld. AO to delete the addition. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. We note that the facts of the instant case before us are materially similar to the one as decided by coordinate bench wherein several decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, Hon'ble Apex Court and also various other decisions of the co-ordinate benches were followed as extracted above. Accordingly we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

Order pronounced on 07.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 07.10.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Page 16 of 17

ITA No. 886/KOL/2026 Vishal Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Page 17 of 17