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

Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd 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 Rs. 35,00,000 company 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. 4 Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd 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:

Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd “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 Jurisdictional 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 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.”

Kolkata, the 2nd December, 2025.