KINETIC VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3034/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 October 2026AY 2012-20136 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus cast upon it by Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed all details and evidences concerning the six subscriber companies, and that notices under Section 133(6) and Section 131 of the Act were complied with by the subscribers, who filed all requested details and evidences. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was made merely for the reason that there was no personal appearance by the directors of the subscriber companies, which it considered insufficient grounds for addition when all other documentation was provided. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Bright Commodeal Pvt Ltd (ITAT No. 162 of 2025), which held that where an assessee has filed all required evidences and complied with notices, an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of non-compliance with Section 131 summons, especially if the factual position recorded by the AO was incorrect. The Tribunal also referred to other supporting decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kinetic Vincom Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 showing nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny due to 'large share premium received'. The assessee had issued shares and received a share capital of ₹14,00,000/- and share premium of ₹1,17,000/-, totaling ₹11,31,00,00/-, from six private limited companies. The assessee provided various documents, including MOA, AOA, board resolutions, ROC forms, bank statements, PAN numbers, and other corporate records. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating the assessee's reply was unsatisfactory and that summons issued under Section 131 to the directors of investing companies did not result in personal appearance. The AO added ₹1,31,00,000/- to the assessee's income. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) confirmed the AO's order. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹1,31,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified, in light of the documents and evidence furnished by the assessee regarding share capital and share premium. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it had discharged its onus by furnishing all necessary details and evidence regarding the share subscribers, including their income tax returns, certificates of incorporation, audited accounts, share application and allotment forms, share certificates, bank statements, and assessment orders for some entities. The assessee contended that the AO's addition was made solely on the ground of non-personal appearance of directors of investing companies, despite compliance with notices under Section 133(6) and Section 131. The assessee relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions, including PCIT vs. Bright Commodeal Pvt Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the AO and subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A), treated the share capital and premium as unexplained cash credit, citing the unsatisfactory reply of the assessee and the non-compliance with Section 131 summons by the directors of the investing companies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131,Section 133(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.08.2025 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

The only issue raised in various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹1,31,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital/ share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.11.2012, showing nil income. The case of the

ITA No. 3034/KOL/2025 Kinetic Vincom Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) with the reason ‘large share premium received’. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued, which were duly replied by the assessee by filing all the details and evidences. During the year the assessee issued its shares to different private limited companies. The assessee company have issued share capital of ₹14,00,000/- and share premium of ₹1,17,000/- totaling to ₹11,31,00,00/- from six private limited companies. The ld. AO called upon the assessee to furnish all the details and evidences qua the share capital/ share premium which were duly filed by the assessee before the AO. The assessee submitted various details like MOA, AOA, board resolutions, ROC forms, bank statements, PAN Nos and other corporate records to justify the share issuance and premium thereon. The ld. AO treated the share capital/ share premium as unexplained cash credit on the ground that the reply of the assessee was not satisfactory without pointing out any defects or deficiency in the books of account. The ld. AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of the investing companies. However, there was no personal appearance. The AO observed that merely submitting documents without producing responsible persons for examination did not discharge the onus cast upon assessee to prove the genuineness of the share capital transactions. Finally, the ld. AO added the same for the reason that there was no compliance to 131 of the Act and the assessment was

Page 2 of 6

ITA No. 3034/KOL/2025 Kinetic Vincom Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 accordingly framed vide order dated 18.03.2015, assessing the income at ₹1,31,00,000/-passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

4.

The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by holding that the ld. AO has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 68 of the Act .

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we note that the assessee has filed before the ld. AO all the details and evidences qua the six subscribers namely; Glossy Dealcom Pvt. ltd., Goldburn Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Ecstasy Merchants Pvt. Ltd, Pearl Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Antriksh Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Glorious Holdings Pvt. Ltd. comprising income tax returns of the shareholders, certificates of incorporation of shareholders, audited accounts of the shareholders, share application forms, share allotment letters, copy of share certificates, copies of bank accounts of the shareholders evidencing transactions duly highlighting in the bank statements, assessment orders u/s 143(1) of the Act, evidences of source of source of the shareholders etc. We note that the ld. AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of the investing companies and the said entities duly complied with the said summons by filing all the details and evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. The details were available at page no. 44 to 182 in the Paper Book. We also note that three subscribers were assessed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the copies of orders for A.Y. 2012-13 are available in the Paper Book of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case ,we are of the view that the assessee has Page 3 of 6

ITA No. 3034/KOL/2025 Kinetic Vincom Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 discharged its onus cast upon by section 68 of the Act. In our opinion, where the assessee has filed all the details and evidences qua the share subscribers and notices u/s 133(6) as well as u/s 131 of the Act were complied with and all details/ evidences were filed by all the subscribers, then no addition can be made merely for the reason that there was no personal appearance by the directors of the subscriber companies. The case of the assessee is also squarely covered 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:

"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 Page 4 of 6

ITA No. 3034/KOL/2025 Kinetic Vincom Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 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." 6. The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by the following decisions:-

i. PCIT Vs. Goodview Marketing Pvt. ltd. in ITAT/114/2025, GA/2/2025, vide order dated 3.09.2026.

ii. PCIT Vs. M/s Devbhumi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT/16/2025, IA no. GA/2/2025 vide order dated 22.07.2025

iii. PCIT Vs. Balaka Vinimay Private Limited in ITAT/131/2025, IA No.GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025 vide order dated 21.07.2025

iv. PCIT Vs. Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. ITAT/286/2024, IA no. GA/2/2024, vide order dated 17.07.2025.

v. PCIT VS. One Point Commercial Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT/75/2025, IA No.GA/1/2025, vide order dated 03.07.2025.

Page 5 of 6

ITA No. 3034/KOL/2025 Kinetic Vincom Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 vi. Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Vs. ITO in ITA No. 250/KOL/2020 vide order dated 21.02.2024. vii. PCIT Vs. M/s Jealous Commercial Private Limited in ITAT/138/2025, IA No. GA/2/2025 vide order dated 28.10.2025. 7. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions , we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.10.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Sudip Digitally signed Copy of the Order forwarded to: by Sudip Sarkar 1. The Appellant Date: 2. The Respondent Sarkar 2026.10.30 3. CIT 09:43:53 +05'30' DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Page 6 of 6

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →