ITO WD 2(1) KOL, KOLKATA vs. UNICORN PLAZA (P) LTD., KOLKATA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income
(Appeals)-21, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] dated
18.06.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for A.Y 2011-12. ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 & C.O. 53/Kol/2024
Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd

2
2. ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had carried business of investment in land and filed e-return for the A.Y. 2011-12 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 14.7.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.6,391/-. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 09.09.2015 was conducted at the business premises of Uniglobal Group of companies wherein the assessee company was a Group company and in course of search, books of accounts and documents with identification marks UPPL/1 to UPPL/4 were found and seized though such document neither pertained to A.Y 2010-11 nor were incriminating material in any manner. Pursuant to the search notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued for each of the 6 (Six) A.Ys. i.e. A.Y. 2010-11
to 2015-16 were issued and served on the appellant company and in compliance to the same, the Return for all the above assessment years were separately filed. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee duly furnished the requisite particulars and documents of different dates to explain the Return. Finally, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act dt.
31.12.2017 assessing the total income at Rs.66,14,480/- after making the following additions/disallowances:
(i) A sum of Rs.65,00,000/- was added on account of Share Capital u/s 68 of the Act
(ii) A sum of Rs. 32,500/- was added u/s 69C on account of Commission paid to the broker
(iii) Expenses of Rs.88,375/- was arbitrarily disallowed u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the IT Rules.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed by holding that the additions cannot be sustained as there was no incriminating material was found during the search operation.

ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 & C.O. 53/Kol/2024
Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd

3
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following grounds of appeal:

4
made by following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in PCIT v.
Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer has not made reference in his assessment order about any incriminating material and document unearthed during search operation. The ld. AR also submits that addition cannot be made only on a statement of Sri VikashChowdhary which was recorded u/s 133A during search and the statement was retraced very next day and hence such statement did not have any evidentiary value.
7. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the facts of the case and find that the assessee had filed original Return of income for the A.Y 2011-12 on 14.07.2011
declaring total loss of Rs.6,391/- and the search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 09/09/2015. On perusal of pages 23-27 of alleged impounded document UPPL/3, we find that the said pages 23-27
consist of ledger account of share application of M/s Uniglobal Papers
Pvt Ltd, a group concern, for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012
and the said share application ledger therefore relates to a different assessee for a different assessment year 2012-13 which was held in the appellate order passed u/s 250 in respect of M/s Uniglobal Papers Pvt
Ltd for A.Y. 2012-13 that the said pages being part of the regular books of account of M/s Uniglobal Papers Pvt Ltd for the A.Y. 2012-13 do not consist of any information which was not available with the Assessing
Officer before the search. We also find that similarly in Page 29 is a list which enumerates 34 instances of the share capital received on various dates in F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13 besides mentioning the respective RTGS Reference numbers and the said page does not specify the name of the concern to which this page pertains and ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 & C.O. 53/Kol/2024
Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd

5
however, this document is also by no means an incriminating document as it depicts that the share capital raised through banking channels relating to a different A.Y. 2012-13 and these transactions pertaining to share capital were duly accounted for by the respective group companies of M/s Uniglobal Group for A.Y. 2012-13. Therefore, we note that the Pages 23-27 & 29 of impounded document UPPL/3 do not constitute incriminating material as was alleged by the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer relied only on the statement of Vikash Chowdhary, an alleged entry operator, who in his statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A on 10.09.2015 had admitted that he had provided accommodation entry to the companies of Uniglobal Group in the guise of share capital and the said statement was retracted on the very next day i.e. on 11.09.2015 and such retraced statement has no evidentiary value as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son[2012] 25 taxmann.com 413/210
Taxman 248. It is important to mention here that the Assessing Officer
Assessing Officer mentioned some cash trails in his assessment order which in fact is not pertained to the assessee company for the assessment year under consideration and the Assessing Officer has also not placed any evidence to prove that the transaction has been routed through shell companies and the same cannot be held as incriminating material. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an elaborate order after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going over the various judicial pronouncements and the operative part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:
“Similarly the other additions made by the AO towards unexplained expenditure u/s 69C to the tune of Rs. 32,500/- and the disallowance u/s 14A to the tune of Rs.88,375/- have been made without reference to any incriminating material.

ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 & C.O. 53/Kol/2024
Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd

6
It has already been discussed earlier in this order that as far as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 (Del) {affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar
Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 149 taxmann.com 399(SC)} is concerned, no addition could have been made in any assessment years if,
(i) no incriminating material was found during the course of the search from the premises of the appellant.
(ii) No assessment was pending as on the date of the search.
As far as the aforesaid second condition is concerned, the appellant had filed his original return of income on 14.07.2011 declaring loss of Rs
6,391/-. The search action in the case of the appellant was carried out on 09.09.2015; therefore, no assessment proceeding was pending in the case of the appellant as on date of the search. Hence, the condition (ii) stood met & satisfied.
With regard to the issue as to whether there existed any incriminating material or not, it has already been discussed at length that the pages 23-
27 and 29 of UPPL/3 referred to by the AO and the statement of Shri
Vikash Chowdhary, an alleged entry operator do not constitute as “incriminating material”. It is not the case of the AO that the share capital raised, or the subsequent investments made were not there in the original return of income and came to light as a result of search. Since this is an unabated assessment year, in view of the foregoing discussions, the addition made by the AO towards unexplained cash credits to the tune of Rs. 65,00,000/-, the undisclosed expenditure u/s 69C to the tune of Rs.32,500/- and the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 88,375/-, in my considered opinion, cannot be sustained as not having been made upon any incriminating material found during search, and, accordingly stand deleted. These grounds raised by the appellant are allowed.”
8. Going over the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 is hereby dismissed.
9. C.O No.15/Kol/24 - The assessee filed the present cross-objection in connection with the present appeal in ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 and as we have already decided the said appeal against revenue, therefore, the cross-objection is not required adjudication and the same is also dismissed.

ITA No.2213/Kol/2024 & C.O. 53/Kol/2024
Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd

7
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed.
Kolkata, the 19th November, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 19.11.2025. RS

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

////
By order