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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2213/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 November 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)7 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no incriminating material related to the additions for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT held that additions cannot be sustained in an unabated assessment year without incriminating material found during the search.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd., filed a return declaring a loss for A.Y. 2011-12. A search operation was conducted under Section 132 in 2015, leading to an assessment under Section 153A/143(3). The Assessing Officer made additions totaling Rs. 65,00,000/- for share capital (Section 68), Rs. 32,500/- for commission (Section 69C), and disallowed Rs. 88,375/- under Section 14A. The CIT(A) subsequently deleted these additions, ruling that no incriminating material was found during the search for this "unabated" assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether additions under Sections 68, 69C, and 14A can be made in an 'unabated' assessment year when no incriminating material related to these additions was found during a search operation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 68,Section 69C,Section 14A,Section 8D(2),Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. 53/Kol/2024
ITA No.2213/Kol/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd….………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [PAN: AAACU8963B] C.O. 53/Kol/2024 (in Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd.….………………. ….……….…….……….……Cross-Objector Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [PAN: AAACU8963B] vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT- DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 03, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 19, 2025 ORDER 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.

C.O. 53/Kol/2024 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd 2.

- 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.

5.

The ld. DR in the course of argument has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the legal obligation of the assessee to prove the receipt of the share capital which the assessee failed to do so.

6.

Contrary to that, the ld. AR has supported the impugned order thereby submitting that there was no incriminating documents were found during the search operation and time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2) had elapsed on 30.9.2012 and no assessment was pending on date of search i.e. 9.9.2015 hence, the present assessment year is unabated assessment year, therefore, the addition could not have been C.O. 53/Kol/2024 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd 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 C.O. 53/Kol/2024 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd 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.

C.O. 53/Kol/2024 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd 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 is hereby dismissed.

9.

C.O No.15/Kol/24 - The assessee filed the present cross-objection in connection with the present appeal in 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.

Kolkata, the 19th November, 2025.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →