Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
O R D E R PER: RAJESH KUMAR, AM These are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-27 dated 14.4.2025 for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and dated 13.4.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, respectively.
Since the facts in all these appeals are identical and common and they relate to the same assessee, therefore they are being disposed off together for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee in for A.Y. 2016-17 and the appeal of the revenue in for A.Y. 2016-17 for adjudication. for A.Y. 2016-17 -Assessee’s appeal and -Revenue’s appeal
The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:
“1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata 27. ['CIT-(A)], erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant, vide order passed Act), dated 13-04-2025 2. that the CIT-(A) erred in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs 36,67,500/as against addition of Rs 7,33,50,000/ made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata, (the AO), assessing the appellant under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 29-03-2024 at an income of Rs. 7,43,61,550/- against the returned income of Rs. 10,11,550/-, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified
P a g e 2 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
3. For that the learned CIT-(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 36,67,500/ by estimating business profit on the amount received on sale of investments, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified 4. For that the learned CIT-(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of AO by failing to appreciate the fact that the amalgamating company is separately being assessed to tax and capital as well as investment of other the companies has duly been verified in their respective assessments, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the ld CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in resorting to the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal
is bad in facts and law.”
4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication.
5. In ground Nos.2,3 and 4 there is the common issue which is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.36,67,500/- as against the total addition of Rs.7,43,61,550/- made by the Assessing Officer.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 showing total income at Rs.8,83,930/- under the normal provisions and Rs.25,71,037/- under section115JB of the Act as book profit. Thereafter, the return was revised on 8.11.2016 showing income of Rs.10,11,550/- and Rs.27,41,962/- under the normal provisions and u/s.115JB of the Act, respectively. The case of the assessee
P a g e 3 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and assessment u/s.147/143(3) of the Act was accordingly framed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 8.3.2022 at an assessed income of Rs.10,11,550/- and Rs.27,41,962/- under the normal provisions and u/s.115JB of the Act, respectively
7. Thereafter a search & seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted on 30.11.2022 and on subsequent dates at various premises of the ‘Kanodia Group’ of cases and the assessee being one of the persons/concerns related to the group was also covered. A notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 10.11.2023 was issued which was duly served on the assessee and the assessee filed the return of income in compliance showing total income at Rs.8,83,930/- and Rs.25,71,037/- under the normal provisions and u/s.115JB of the Act respectively. Thereafter, statutory notices were served on the assessee alongwith the detailed questionnaire, calling upon the assessee to explain the sale of investments of unlisted private equity shares. The Assessing Officer observed during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee had acquired several paper/shell companies to re-route the unaccounted income of the group in regular books of account in the form of ‘sale of investment’ done by these paper/shell companies prior to amalgamation with the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the companies were M/s. Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Jyani Dealers Pvt Ltd., The AO further noted that before acquisition of these two companies, the said companies had sold
P a g e 4 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., investments in unlisted equity shares standing in their books of account of which the ultimate beneficiary was the assessee company as it acquired these companies through amalgamation. The Assessing Officer noted that these shell entities were managed by the same entry operators. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer discussed the modus operandi and details regarding these shell companies in the assessment order. The AO also discussed the sale of shares by the amalgamating company i.e. M/s. Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd. in assessment order. Thereafter, the AO discussed the individual private companies whose shares were sold by the amalgamating company ,i.e. M/s. Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd during the instant financial year. Similarly, the AO discussed the details of M/s. Jyani Dealers Pvt ltd., in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer also issued summons u/s.131 of the Act to the parties who had purchased the unlisted equities from the amalgamating companies which were duly served and were also replied by the said parties. The AO further noted that none of the company’s Director or any representatives of the entities appeared before the AO to explain the transactions. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron and steel Pvt Ltd., reported in 412 ITR 161 (SC) dated 5th March, 2019 treated the sale of investments by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and, accordingly, made an addition of Rs.7,33,50,000/- to the income of the in the assessment year 2016-17. In the same assessment order, the AO
P a g e 5 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., discussed the facts and additions made in respect of other assessment years i.e. 2017-18 to 2021-22 in the assessment order passed u/s.147/143(3) of the Act dated 29.3.2024.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.6,96,82,400/- while directing the AO to make addition towards the estimated profits @ 5% of the total sales consideration which comes to Rs.36,67,500/-. Ld. CIT(A) while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee made a detailed discussions about the facts of the case that these companies were merged with the assessee and in the preceding assessment years, the investments in private equity shares were made by the amalgamating companies and were also accepted by the department even in the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act framed in the case of two companies merged with the assessee and no revisionary proceedings have been taken against those assessment orders which had attained finality since then.
The assessee has challenged the part sustenance of addition to the extent of Rs.,36,67,500/- whereas the revenue is in appeal before us against the partial relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.6,96,82,500/-.
10. At the time of hearing, ld AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessee company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 30.12.2004 and since then regularly assessed to tax with the department.
P a g e 6 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is, inter alia, engaged in carrying on the business of trading of sundry iron and steel items. The ld AR submitted that the two companies namely, M/s. Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Jyani Dealers Pvt Ltd., were amalgamated with the assessee company vide order dated 26.12.2022 in Company Petition (CAA) No.100/KB/2022 connected with Company Application (CAA) No.27/KB/2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Benches.
11. Ld AR submitted that in the case of M/S Jyani Dealers Pvt Ltd ,the assessment was concluded u/s.143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2017- 18 vide order dated 02.05.2019, copy of which is available at pages 38 to 39 of CPB. The Ld. counsel submitted that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, copy of which is available at pages 42 to 45 of CPB. Ld. counsel submitted that the case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection and the reasons for selection were the examination of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and investments/advances/loans. Ld. AR thereafter referred to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, copy of which is available at pages 40 to 41 of CPB, which testified that the Assessing Officer has specifically raised a query in respect of the investments made by the assessee in equity shares, in para 6. Ld. AR thereafter submitted that in response to the notice u/s.142(1) dated 26.10.2018 of Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted the break-up of unquoted shares sold by the assessee and the copy of the reply is placed
P a g e 7 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., at pages 36 to 37 of CPB. Ld. AR thereafter drew the attention of the Bench to the assessment framed on 02.05.2019 placed at pages 38 to 39 of CPB, accepting the returned income after verification of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality insofar as the issue of purchase and sale of shares in private companies are concerned and there is no revisionary proceedings initiated by the department, which proved that M/S Jyani Dealers Pvt Ltd. is not a shell company. Ld. AR submitted that the allegation of the shell companies made by the Assessing officer in a casual manner and is based on suspicion and is not based on any concrete/substantive material. Ld. AR further submitted that the name of Shri Rajendra Babuna has been mentioned in the impugned assessment order, which was based upon the information gathered during the search on the entry providers conducted in 2013 and this was very much in the knowledge of the department when the assessment order was passed vide order dated 02.05.2019. ld AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was also completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.6.2016, copy of which is placed at pages 46 to 51 of CPB and the total amount of investment in shares had been recorded at Rs.14,48,28,250/- in the books of the above amalgamating company which also was accepted by the department. Ld. AR submitted that the above amalgamating company had sold a part of total investment for Rs.7,33,50,000/- during the year under consideration at P a g e 8 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., cost. It was further submitted that the summons were issued u/s.131 of the Act to the purchasers of investments from the amalgamating company h were duly served and the replies were received along with confirmations and supporting documents. Ld. AR therefore, prayed before the Bench that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) accepting the contentions of the assessee that these are not shell companies are based on facts and that the assessee has furnished all the details before the AO as well as before the appellate proceedings. Ld. counsel further submitted that as the investments in private equity shares were made by the amalgamating company and the realization of sale proceeds of the investments were also received by the company, the same cannot be added to the income of the assessee by doubting the same as bogus.
12. Similarly, as regards the second amalgamating company M/S Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd , the ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 vide order dated 22.05.2019 copy whereof is available at page no. 23 & 24 of PB. The Ld. counsel submitted that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, copy of which is available at pages 28 to 31 of CPB. Ld. counsel submitted that the case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection and the reasons were for examination of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and investments/advances/loans. Ld. AR thereafter referred to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, which is available at pages 25 to 27 of CPB, which testified that the Assessing Officer has specifically raised a query in respect of the investments made by the assessee in private equity shares. Ld. AR thereafter submitted that in P a g e 9 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., response to the notice u/s.142(1) dated 22.01.2019 of Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted the break-up of unquoted shares sold by the assessee and the copy of the reply is placed at pages 21 to 22 of CPB. Ld. AR thereafter drew to the attention of the Bench to the assessment framed on 22.5.2019 as placed at pages 23 to 24 of CPB, accepting the returned income after verification of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. ld. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 was also completed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act on 10.12.2018, copy of which is placed at pages 32 to 33 of CPB.
13. Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A) by submitting that sale of investments held by the amalgamating companies since earlier years as such cannot be doubted and added u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AR strongly opposed to the part sustenance of addition to the extent of 5% towards estimated net profit of the total sale consideration of private equity shares which the assessee may have earned as the same is imaginary and hypothetical. Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason for part sustaining the addition except relying on certain decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Swarna Kalash Commercial pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle 2(2), Kolkata in It(search & seizure) A No.53/Kol/2022 dated 1.9.2023 and Ashtvinayak Sales Pvt ltd vs ACIT in IT(ss) A No.54/Kol/2022 dated 14.9.2023 and restricted the addition to 5% of the amount received from sale of investments by treating the same as estimated business profit
P a g e 10 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., embedded in the total sales consideration. Therefore, ld. AR prayed that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is uncalled for and unwarranted especially in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Tulsyan and Sons Pvt Ltd., in order dated 18.1.2024 which has been approved by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tulsyan and Sons Pvt Ltd., reported in (2025) 174 taxmann.com 37 (Cal High Court). Ld. AR therefore, prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed by modifying the order of the ld. CIT(A), directing the deletion of the part sustenance of addition to the extent of 5% of the sales consideration made by the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons aforementioned.
14. On the other hand, ld Ld. CIT(A) DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer by submitting that the amalgamating companies were shell companies which were holding the private equity shares. The ld CIT DR submitted that these shares were sold on cost price by the amalgamating companies, which was nothing but only accommodation entries in the hands of the amalgamating companies. The ld DR submitted that after merger with the assessee, the total sale consideration was rightly treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee as the assessee was ultimate beneficiary of these transactions. Ld. CIT DR while relying heavily on the order of the Assessing Officer, submitted that the Assessing Officer has discussed comprehensively in the P a g e 11 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., assessment order the reasons why the addition was made in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act.
15. Controverting the arguments of the ld. CIT DR, ld. AR submitted that the buyer of investments had replied to the summons issued u/s.131 of the Act by confirming the transactions and also filed the supporting evidences. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that the amalgamating companies were shell/bogus companies is devoid of any truth.
16. In reply, ld Ld. CIT(A) DR submitted that mere furnishing of all documents and compliance to the summons would not automatically prove the fact that these were genuine transactions by the amalgamating companies. Therefore, ld Ld. CIT DR prayed that the order of the ld CIT(A) be reversed and that of the AO be restored.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is carrying on the business of trading of sundry iron and steel items and is being assessed to tax regularly right from the inception when it was incorporated on 30.12.2004. We note that vide order dated 26.12.2022 of NCLT Kolkata benches, two companies namely M/s. Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Jyani Dealer Pvt Ltd., were amalgamated with the assessee company. We note that undisputedly these investments in the private equity shares were held by these amalgamating companies in their respective balance sheets. We also note that these
P a g e 12 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., private equity investments were also sold by these amalgamating companies and the sales considerations were also received by them. Thereafter, vide the above NCLT order, these companies came to be merged with the assessee company upon amalgamation. We note that these investments were accepted by the revenue in the hands of amalgamating companies in the earlier assessment years even in the assessments framed u/s.143(3) of the Act as mentioned hereinabove. We note that the assessments were framed for the assessment year 2017-18 in case of amalgamating companies namely Jyani Dealers Pvt Ltd and Jyani Agencies Pvt Ltd vide orders dated 02.5.2019 and 22.05.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the AO and these investments were accepted. We note that the notices u/s.143(2) and u/s.142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued wherein the Assessing Officer specifically raised the issue of investment in private equity shares. In fact, the scrutiny has been selected primarily to verify the investments in private equity shares and the assessments were framed u/s.143(3) of the act dated 02.05.2019 & 22.05.2019 as stated above accepting these investments in private equity shares. Whereas in the impugned assessment order, the AO has raised suspicion on share capital raised by the amalgamating companies by overlooking the fact that the share capital of the amalgamating companies were accepted in their respective assessments by the AO. In our opinion the AO has no basis of such suspicion and therefore, we do not find any merit
P a g e 13 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., in the contention of the revenue that these were shell companies and has been rightly treated so by the AO while framing the assessment and the addition has been rightly made u/s.68 of the Act at Rs.7,33,50,000/-. In our opinion, once these investments have been accepted in the earlier assessment years in the hands of the amalgamating companies, then how the same can be treated as unexplained investments when these investments were sold by the same amalgamating companies. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd.(supra) is distinguishable on facts and therefore not applicable to the present case before us as in the present the buyers of shares were issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and they responded to the summons by filing their confirmations along with the supporting evidences as mentioned by the AO in second part of para 8 in the assessment order whereas in the above case PCIT vs NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd.(supra) the investors were not traceable even. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Tulsyan and Sons Pvt Ltd(supra). We also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Pawanputra Advertising Private Limited, in IT(SS)A No. 144 & 145/KOL/2024 (AYs: 2019-20 & 2020-21) and others order dated 26.8.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that where the investments made by the assessee were accepted by the department in earlier assessment years which culminated u/s.143(3) of the Act in one of P a g e 14 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., the assessment years, then same cannot be doubted when sold in the subsequent assessment year and added as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. The case of the assessee is even on better footing for the reasons that the sale of investments were also made by the amalgamating companies and sale considerations were also received by them. The operating part of the decision in the case of ACIT vs Pawanputra Advertising Private Limited(supra) are reproduced hereunder:
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record including the written submissions dated 21.04.2025 and paper books No. 1 (page No. 1 to 357) ,paper book no. 2 (page No. 1 to 354 and paper book 3 (Case Laws). We find that the only dispute is sale of part unlisted equity shares to various parties thereby realizing total sales consideration of ₹11,56,20,000/-. We note that the assessee raised money by issue of equity shares in A.Y. 2008-09 of Rs. 64,85,49,000/- . We also note that entire funds raised were invested in unlisted equity shares in AY 2011-12. We note that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny only for this reason and the money raised by the assessee was accepted by the department and no adverse interference was drawn. We note that in A.Y. 2010-11 also, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and all the money share capital /share premium was accepted. Thereafter the investments were made in private equity shares which were unlisted in A.Y. 2011-12. Similarly 2017-18 the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and investments were not doubted at all. Thus it is clear that over all these years the investments were not doubted by the department. These investments made in the A.Y. 20111-12 were partly sold at cost by the assessee during the instant assessment year which realized ₹11,56,20,000/- which were accepted by the Revenue right from A.Y. 2011-12 till the instant assessment year. We have also noted that the assessee has filed before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) all the evidences qua the purchases and sale of shares. The assessee has filed all the evidences qua the purchasers such as ITRs, names, addresses, audited balance sheets, bank statements, confirmations, etc. proving the identity, creditworthiness of the purchasers and genuineness of the transactions. We note that even the purchasing companies have P a g e 15 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., filed their evidences as called for by the ld. AO comprising all the evidences as stated above. The ld. CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that apart from the assessee , purchasing companies had also filed all the evidences before the ld. AO however the ld. AO had not brought on record any independent and substantive evidences pointing out any defect or deficiency in the said evidences. The ld. CIT (A) finally noted that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and also the genuineness of the transactions by filing all these documents and thus, discharged its initial burden. We observe that the ld. CIT (A) also noted that the department has accepted all these investments in the earlier assessment years, even in the scrutiny assessments and had not drawn any adverse interference. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity/anomaly in the appellate order of the ld. CIT (A), who has passed a very reasoned and speaking order after following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT VS. Dataware Private Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the co-ordinate benches on the same issue namely; M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) &M/s Ashtvinayak Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra). We have perused the decisions in the above referred two decisions of the coordinate benches followed by the ld. CIT (A) and find that the issue is exactly similar as before us in the present case. The operative part of M/s Ashtvinayak Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) extracted below: - 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials as placed before us. The issue for adjudication before us is in respect of confirmation of addition by ld CIT(A) as made by the AO on the ground that the identity and credentials of the purchasers are suspicious. We observe that the assessee has been in the regular business of purchase and sales of investments over the years as corroborated by the materials placed before us. Even the sales proceeds received during the current financial year were in respect of sale of shares /investments partly out of opening balance and partly out of current purchases as is apparent from the following chart placed before us:-
P a g e 16 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
9.1. The assessee has also filed movement of investments over the years which showed that the phenomenon of purchase and sale of shares/investments was regular feature of the assessee’s business. This is also undisputed that the assessee company had raised share capital (including premium) amounting to Rs.119,84,67,000/- in financial year 2010-11, relevant to AY 2011-12 and the capital so raised in AY 2011-12 was invested in shares/securities and accounted for in the books of accounts which were audited and audited accounts are placed at page no. 102 to 111 of PB Vol.-1. We also note that the assessment for AY 2011-12 was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2014 a copy of which is placed at page no. 276 and 277 of PB Vol.-1 and the neither the share capital/share premium nor the investments out of that source were doubted by the AO. 9.2. We also note that similar issue was involved in the case of M/S Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT ,Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata, a group concern of the Rashmi Group of Companies ,which was also subjected to search u/s 132(1) of the Act in the same search proceedings. We note that the coordinate bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No. I.T.(S.S.)A.No.53/Kol/2022 A.Y.2019-20 vide order dated 01.09.2023 involving the same issue of addition of sale of shares/investments by the AO on the ground that identity and credentials of the purchasers of shares/investments were suspicious. The operative part of the order is extracted as under: “6.1.We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. First we deal with the issue relating to the undated detailed order passed by the Assessing Officer even after the prescribed date of limitation for passing the assessment order for the assessment year under consideration which is other than the short cryptic order as reproduced above and which did not even bear any Document Identification Number, (in short “DIN”)as mandated vide CBDT Circular No.19 of 2019. 6.1. As mentioned in the said CBDT circular no. 19 of 2019 and as also further held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. [2023[ 149 taxmann.com 238 (Del), any communication without mentioning of the DIN in its body is to be treated as non-est. Therefore, the P a g e 17 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., subsequent undated assessment order and without any DIN mentioned in the order, and passed after the limitation period prescribed for passing of the assessment order cannot be taken cognisance of.
7. So far as the original order (extracted above) passed by the Assessing Officer is concerned, we are in agreement with the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the same is a small and cryptic order and the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer in the said order in a mechanical manner without any discussion on merits and without pointing out any justifying material warranting such additions. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer by way of such an cryptic order are not sustainable as per law. ……..
We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record.We find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel of the assessee which have been discussed above in detail. We note that it is an admitted fact on record that assesseeraised share capital at a premium in FY 2005-06 which was accepted by the AO in scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The capital so raised was invested in shares of Pvt. Ltd. of various companies. These shares were sold during the year under consideration to different parties, corporate/non-corporate. The sale proceeds have come in assessee’s bank account through banking channel. 11.1. In its normal course of business, the assessee had made purchases and sale of investments as under which is tabulated as under:
11.2. The shares were held by the assessee as investments and were sold at the cost of acquisition by the assessee. Hence, there is no profit/loss on such sale of investment. We also look at the P a g e 18 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., movement of investment held by the assessee, which is tabulated below:
FY AY Opening Purchase Sales Amount Closing Balance byA.O. 2014-15 2015-16 63,42,00,000 63,42,00000 2015-16 2016-17 63,42,00,000 42,44,960 18,344,960 62,01,00,000 1,83,44,960 2016-17 2017-18 62,01,00,000 56,27,44,459 468,499,459 71,43,45,000 46,84,99,459 2017-18 2018-19 71.43.45,000 1,55,17,29,538 2,062,064,910 20,40,09,628 2,06,20,64,910 2018-19 2019-20 20,40,09,628 66, 47, 64, 007 170,560,000 69,82,13,635 17,05,60,000 Total 2,71,94,69,239 11.3. We also refer to the details of opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock during the year, placed on record by the assessee: SI Opening Purchases Sales Closing No Name of the Script Balance Balance Amount Amount Amount Amount I Bellona Supply Pvt. Ld. 1,24,57,344 0 1,24,57,344 0 2 P N Jewelers Pvt ltd 38,45,323 0 38,45,323 0 3 Rozela Tie Up pvt. Ltd. 3,64,33,053 0 3,64,33,053 0 4 Rashmi Cement Ltd. 0 1,57,32,000 0 1,57,32.00 0 5 Cimmco Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 13,32,04,353 53,71,44,701 0 67,03,49,0 54 6 Festive Vincom Pvt Ltd 28,01,625 0 0 28,01,625 7 GreenHillDealmark Pvt Ltd 26,14,850 0 0 26,14,850 8 SwabhimanCommosales 26,15,900 0 0 26,15,900 Pvt Ltd 9 Topline Business Pvt Ltd 41,00,205 0 0 41,00,205 10 VidyaBuildcon Pvt Ltd 0 2,50,00,000 2,50,00,000 0 11 BadrinathMinning Pvt Ltd 59,36,974 75,250 60,12,224 0 12 Sankul Retailers Private 0 74,49,572 74,49,572 0 Ltd 13 Alok Financial Services 0 8,10,000 8,10,000 0 Pvt Ltd 14 Asankul Cosmetics Pvt Ltd 0 6,55,26,090 6,55,26,090 0 15 Daffodil Plaza Pvt Ltd 0 88,198 88,198 0 16 NAT Communication & 0 1,26,37,632 1,26,37,632 0 Marketing Pvt Ltd 17 Alok Pattanayak 0 3,00,000 3,00,000 0 Total 20,40,10,245 66,47,63,507 17,05,60,00 69,82,13,6 0 34 11.4. Based on the analysis of the above details, it is evident that entire sales ismadefrom purchases & opening stock as under:
Breakup of Sale of Shares Breakup of Sale of Shares Amount(Rs.) Amount(Rs.) Sold out of Opening Investment Sold out of Opening Investment 5,86,73,194 5,86,73,194 Sold out of Investment Purchased Sold out of Investment Purchased
P a g e 19 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
During the Year 11,18,86,806 During the Year 11,18,86,806 Total 17,05,60,000 Total 17,05,60,000 11.5. It is also important to note that the AO has made enquiries from the buyers ofthe shares sold by the assessee by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act who haveresponded and furnished the required details. Summary Statement of the replies madein response to notice u/s 131 by various buyers (Sale of Shares) is tabulated below:
P a g e 20 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
Further, according to the ld. Counsel, the only piece of evidence that is there in this case is the statement of Sri Sanjib Patwari who is one of the owners of the Rashmi group and Sri K K Verma is the accountant, recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which have been relied upon by the Assessing Officer. These statements have been retracted the very next day by furnishing affidavits. Subsequent to retraction, no further cross-examination was conducted of these persons. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that even otherwise the addition made by the Assessing Officer was far more than the alleged disclosure made by these persons in their retracted statements and hence, no cognizance in fact can be taken for the purpose of the addition. 12.1. We find force in the above contentions of the ld. Counsel in the facts and circumstances of the case. As laid down by the various Higher Courts of the country, the retracted statement can not be made sole basis for making the additions. The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. [2023]148 taxmann.com 313(Calcutta) has held that where assessing officer solely based on statement of assessee’s director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee company as undisclosed income and made additions u/s 68 of the Act, since said statement was retracted and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence or investigation brought on record by AO, impugned additions were liable to be deleted. Even the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of “Naresh Kumar Agarwal” (2015) 53 taxmann.com 306 (Andhra Pradesh) has observed that where, in the absence of any incriminating material etc. found from the premises of the assessee during the course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Similar view has been adopted by the Jaipur bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Shree Chand Soni vs. DCIT” (2006) 101 TTJ 1028 (Jodhpur). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal” in vide order dated 10.03.16 has observed that a statement made under section 132(4) ofthe Act on a stand-alone basis, without
P a g e 21 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operation, would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. In the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Agarwal” (2015) 64 taxman.com 107 (Delhi-HC), the assessee therein, during the course of search, made a categorical admission under section 132(4) that the cash amount seized belonged to him and it represented undisclosed income not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee did not immediately retract from the above admission but only during the assessment proceedings at a belated stage. In his retraction, the assessee stated that the surrender was made under a mistaken belief and without looking into books of account and without understanding law and that he had been compelled and perturbed by events of search and that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances of the case, while dismissing the appeal of the revenue, observed that though the fact that the assessee may have retracted his statement belatedly, yet, it did not relieve the AO from examining the explanation offered by the assessee with reference to the books of account produced before him. Although, a statement under section 132(4) of the Act carries much greater weight than the statement made under section 133A of the Act, but a retracted statement even under section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “BasantBansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat
P a g e 22 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., or coercion and that no incriminating material was found during the search action. The stand of the department was that the admission was voluntary and was not under a mistaken belief of fact or law and that the assistance had enough time to go through the facts of their case, law applicable in their case and take advice from their counsels and advisors before filing the letter of surrender of undisclosed/unaccounted income and that the admission by them was final and binding on them; The co-ordinate Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, after overall appreciation of the fact and evidences before it, observed that the assessee’s surrender was not based on any incriminating material and that the discloser being not voluntary and extracted by the department in creating a coercive situation cannot be relied solely to be basis of addition as undisclosed income. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal while relying upon various case laws of the higher authorities observed that it is well settled legal position that merely on the basis of a statement which is not supported by the department with cogent corroborative material cannot be a valid basis for sustaining such ad-hoc addition. The co-ordinate Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal (supra) further observed that the issue of existence of pressure, threat, coercion during search proceedings is to be judged by reference to the existing facts and circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of possibilities. During the search proceedings, record relating thereto being in exclusive custody of the searching officers, it is their wish and will which prevails during the fateful period. That it is almost impossible for theassessee to adduce demonstrative evidence of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders” (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter.
P a g e 23 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
12.3. The case of the assessee, before us, is on better footing as in this case, there is no delay in retraction of the statement which was done on the very next day by filing affidavits before the Metropolitan Magistrate 12.4. Even the CBDT Letter No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated Oct 3, 2003 in this respect read as under: “To The Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, (Cadre Contra) & All Directors General of Income Tax Inv. Sir, Subject: Confession of additional Income during the course of search & seizure and survey operation – regarding Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessees while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, on confessions during the course of search & seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Departments. Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search it seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders. Yours faithfully, 12.5. A perusal of the above circular also shows that it is in the notice of the statutory controlling body of the Income Tax Authorities that the revenue officials are used to take
P a g e 24 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., confessional statements from the person searched under force, pressure or threat and that is why they have made it mandatory that additions solely on the basis on such statements should not be made and that corroborative evidences should be collected or obtained before making such additions. The circular of the CBDT is binding on the revenue officials. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when seen in the light of above case laws and CBDT circular, additions in this case cannot be said to be justifiably made.
All the above details when kept in juxtaposition, there remains nothing to cast an iota of doubt on the sale transaction of shares held by the assessee as investments which it undertook in the ordinary course of its business, more importantly, purchases having made in the current year also. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, both opening balance of investment in shares and the purchases made during the year have not been disputed or doubted by the authorities below so as to bring the entire sale consideration to tax.
At this stage, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has claimed that it has undertaken this sale transaction by selling the shares at the cost at which it had acquired them in AY 2006-07. At the same time, assessee submits that it has undertaken this transaction in the ordinary course of its business. The ld. DR has submitted that the conduct of business is always with a profit motive, more particularly when the assessee had held these shares for past several years and had also made purchases during the year, deploying its funds. There ought to be certain element of profit embedded in the sale transaction executed which must be brought to tax.
Considering the above submission of the ld. DR and taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element @ 5% of the sale consideration i.e. 5% of Rs.17,05,60,000/- which comes to Rs.85,28,000/- be subjected to tax. We, accordingly delete the addition to the extent of Rs.16,20,32,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act and sustain the balance of Rs.85,28,000/- towards profit element on the impugned sale transaction of shares undertaken by the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
P a g e 25 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., 9.4. It is clear from the above that the facts in the instant case before us are materially same vis a vis the facts in the case decided by the coordinate bench supra in group concern. We, therefore, respectfully following the same set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to apply profit of 5% on the sales proceeds of Rs. 99,72,36,896/- whichcomes to Rs. 4,98,61,845/- and delete the remaining addition of Rs. 94,73,75,051/-.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.”
9. We have also perused decision by the Hon'ble High Court in ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 vide order dated 16th April, 2025, in the case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited(supra) affirming the order of the tribunal. In the said case the addition made by the ld. AO on account of sale of investment was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble High Court while deciding the issue held as under: - We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, learned advocate for the respondent. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned tribunal was right in affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated 10.5.2023 by which the assessee’s appeal was allowed and the addition made under section 68 of the Act was deleted. The Assessing Officer made the addition by invoking section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the money received through cash trail. The CIT(A) in course of hearing the appeal called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and in the said remand report the Assessing Officer has in no uncertain terms accepted the receipt of the impugned sum on account of sale proceeds of investment. The Assessing Officer verified the investment sold which are shown in the balance-sheet for the financial year 2010-11 in Schedule-4 of the balance-sheet and after considering these facts it was stated that the assessee had sold shares held by way of the investment during the year to P a g e 26 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., M/s. Shivshakti Communications and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Carnation Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and it is not a receipt of unsecured loan. This fact, apart from other factual details, were considered by the CIT(A) and by an elaborate order dated 10.5.2023 the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The tribunal on its part re-examined the factual position and took note of the findings rendered by the CIT(A) and concurred with the same. We also find that the tribunal has also examined thefactual position and took note of the remand report as called for by the CIT(A) which confirmed the alleged sum is on account of sale of investment and not otherwise. Thus, we find no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected application stands closed.
10. Since, the facts of the case before us vis-à-vis, facts of the decisions cited above are substantially similar and therefore, we respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decisions upheld the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
11. So far as the Cross Objection is concerned, we note that the assessee has challenged the direction of the ld. CIT (A) to the ld. AO to make an addition at the rate of 5% of the total sales consideration towards the net profit embedded in the sales consideration.
12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has not given any basis for such direction to the ld. Assessing Officer. In other words, the ld. CIT (A) has just acted on the presumptions and surmises and thus, presumed that the assessee might have made some profits from sale by investments. In our opinion, the said direction by the ld. CIT (A) is without any substantive basis and therefore cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) to the extent of this direction of making addition @ 5%. Accordingly, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed.
We note that the Co-ordinate Bench has considered and followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tulsiyan and Sons Pvt Ltd (supra).
P a g e 27 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
Moreover, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has not given any basis for such direction to the ld. Assessing Officer to add 5% of the total sales towards estimated profit. In other words, the ld. CIT (A) has just acted on the presumptions and surmises and thus, presumed some profits from sale of investments. In our opinion, the said direction by the ld. CIT (A) is without any substantive basis and therefore cannot be sustained. Since, the facts of the case before us vis-à-vis, facts of the decisions cited above are substantially similar and therefore, We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and also the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Tulsiyan and Sons Pvt Ltd (supra), we set set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) so far as it relates to part sustaining the addition to the extent of 5%. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed.
The issue involved in the assessee’s appeals in to 1367/Kol/2025 and Revenue’s appeal in to 1556/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to Assessment Year: 2021-22 are similar to ones as decided by us in the assessee’s appeal & Revenue Appeal ITA No. 1551/Kol/2025 Assessment Year 2016-17. Therefore, our decision in assessee’s as well as revenue appeal in Assessment Year 2016-17 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to the above appeals of the assessee and revenue from Assessment Year 2017-18 to 2021-22. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
P a g e 28 | 29
Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,
In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/11/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata: Dated 19/11/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) & Sudip Sarkar, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Assessee: Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd.,6, Hungerford, 3rd floor, Kolkata 2. The Revenue :DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata By order 3. The CIT(A)-Kolkata-27 4. Pr.CIT. Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack Asst.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata
P a g e 29 | 29