DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated
28.04.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 27 days.
The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed ITR u/s 139 of the Act 11.08.2012 declaring income of Rs. 3,417/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. Later, a search and seizure operation
Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd

2
u/s 132(1) of the Act and survey operation u/s 133A of the Act were conducted in respect of ‘Golden Goenka group of assessees’ on 17.03.2015 and on subsequent dates. Assessment proceedings were completed on 26.03.2015 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.
2,90,53,420/-. This group was engaged in the business of financing, trading and investment in commodities and shares, mutual funds, real estates, and beverages. Being one of the entities of the said group, the assessee was also covered under this search & seizure operation conducted on 17.03.2015. During the course of search & seizure operation, documents (containing bank details of the assessee) were found and seized from the office premise of the assessee. These documents were inventoried under ID Marks GG/3. Consequent upon the search & seizure operation, ‘Golden Goenka group of cases’ were centralized to the Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata for post search assessment proceedings. Subsequently, juri iction of this case was transferred to the charge of Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vide order u/s 127 of the Act dated 16.12.2015 of the Pr.CIT-1, Kolkata. Thereafter, assessment proceeding u/s 153A of the Act was initiated and notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued for furnishing of return of income. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished its return on 26.03.2016 declaring income to Rs. 3,420/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) & u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 06.6.2016 and 18.08.2017 respectively. In response to these notices, the AR of the assessee appeared and explained the return of income and also furnished the financial statements of the company for the relevant assessment year. The assessee also furnished the details of shares allotment to the subscriber entities and application money
(including share premium) received from those share subscribers. After considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, order u/s 153A of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 29.12.2017 assessing income of Rs. 35,03,420/- by making an addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- for Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd

3
unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on account of amount received by the assessee in terms of share application money.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the assessee has been allowed.
5. Being dissatisfied, the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd

4
6. Contrary to that, the ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee during the year raised share capital with premium of Rs. 95,00,000/- only from two group companies, namely
M/s Aalekha Supply (p) Ltd. and M/s Sri Salasar Suppliers (p) Ltd. by issuing 9,500 equity shares and the equity shares were issued of face value of Rs. 10/- at premium of Rs. 990/- and the share subscription money was paid through banking channels. The ld. AR submits that requisite details were submitted such as certificate of ROC, the name, address & PAN of the subscriber of equity shares, ITR Acknowledgement,
Balance Sheets, Bank Statements, Source of fund of the subscriber of equity share and balance Sheet, memorandum and articles of association etc. In the course of appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted that they had furnished all the requisite details in respect of share capital & share premium of Rs. 35,00,000/- from the M/s Salasar
Suppliers Private Limited which is a sister concern of the Golden Goenka
Group and the details are as under:
“M/s Sri Salasar Suppliers Private Limited
CIN of the Entity
U51909WB1993PTC058083
Date of Incorporation
15.03.1993
PAN of the Entity
AADCS8457R
Address of the Entity
3rd Floor 69A, Lenin Sarani Kolkata
WB 700013
Status of the entity in MCA site
ACTIVE compliant
Paid up Share Capital & Free Reserves
Rs. 2,19,55,817
Investment made in the assessee company
Rs. 35,00,000

Along with the above information, the assessee also claimed that they have submitted following documents before the AO:- i) Share application form of the subscriber company.
ii) Share allotment letter to the subscriber company.
iii) ROC form, challan with annexure.
iv) Audited accounts of the share applicant company.
v) Bank statement of the share applicant company.
Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd

5
vi) Source of the source of the share applicant company.
6.1
The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer only made the addition on the ground that the directors of the share subscribing company was not made personal appearance in response to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act without showing any defect, shortcoming in the details furnished before him and such documents indicates that the onus cast upon the assessee under section 68 of the Act to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness was duly discharged. His submissions that the identity of the lender companies cannot be doubted as relevant documentary evidences were placed on record and the alleged transaction in question was done through banking channels. The ld. AR submits that there is no irregularity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has discussed everything in details in his impugned order. To support his contention, the ld. AR has submitted the following judicial pronouncements:
1. PCIT vs. Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ITAT/114/2025] of Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court
2. PCIT vs. M/s Bright Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. [ITAT/162/2025] of Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court
3. PCIT vs. M/s Devbhumi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. [ITAT/16/2025] of Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court
4. PCIT vs. Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. [ITAT/131/2025] of Hon’ble Calcutta
High Court

6
M/s Salasar Suppliers Private Limited which is a sister concern of the Golden Goenka Group and the details are as under:-
No. of shares
Face value@ Rs.
10/-
Share Premium
@ 900/-
Total
Amount
(Rs.)
3500
Rs. 35,000/-
Rs. 34,65,000/-
Rs. 35,00,000/-

7
“6.2.19. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the discussions held above, it is noticed that the appellant assessee had discharged its onus by establishing the identity & creditworthiness of M/s Sri
Salasar Suppliers Private Limited, which is a sister concern of the assessee, by providing the details of the said share applicant through various documents as mentioned in the above paras. It is found that explanations and evidences made in the course of appellate proceeding are suffice to satisfy all the three legs of the section 68 of the Act. In these circumstances, drawing any adverse inference in this case shall be tantamount to adjudicating the issue against the principles of natural justice. Hence, treating share capital of Rs.35,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s 68of the Act without bringing any credible and cogent incriminating evidence on record, is not logical and seems based on mere assumptions and thus, is liable to be deleted. Hence, the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- is deleted.
Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.”
7.2
We have gone through the cited decisions of Hon’ble Juri ictional
High Court including the decision in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Bright
Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court 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 u/s 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. (ΠΑ/282/Kol/2012) wherein the factual position was also similar to that of the case of the assessee.
Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd

8
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.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
8. Going over the discussion made above and considering the judicial pronouncements, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld as the ld. CIT(A) has discussed everything in his order and thereafter passed the impugned order in favour of the assessee considering the judicial precedents. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Kolkata, the 2nd December, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 02.12.2025. RS

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

////
By order