SUPERDEAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 726/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 September 2025AY 2022-202315 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's return of income for AY 2022-23 was selected for scrutiny based on information regarding verification cases. The Ld. AO added ₹9,32,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, alleging that the sale of investments/shares was bogus and represented accommodation entries. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

Held

The tribunal noted that the investments were made in preceding assessment years and had been consistently accepted by the department without doubt in prior scrutiny assessments. It found that the assessee had provided ample evidence (purchase/sale bills, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations) establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions and purchasers, which the AO failed to disprove with independent evidence. Citing precedents regarding additions based on retracted statements without corroborative material, the tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

Key Issues

Whether the addition of unexplained cash credit for sale of investments under Section 68 and 115BBE is justified when the investments were previously accepted by the department, and the assessee provides comprehensive evidence of genuineness and identity. Also, the evidentiary value of retracted statements made during search proceedings for making additions.

Sections Cited

68, 115BBE, 143(1), 143(3), 133(6), 132(1), 132(4), 133A, 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Hearing: 30.07.2025Pronounced: 16.09.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2025 for the AY 2022-23.

The only issue raised by the assessee in both the grounds is against the confirmation of addition of ₹9,32,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of sale of investments by invoking provisions of Section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The ld. CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee company has sold unlisted shares which were not invested in real companies and therefore, sale consideration realized during the year was apparently bogus in nature to provide accommodation entries only. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the principle / theory of human probabilities while dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the shares purchased by the assessee in the preceding assessment years were “`7. “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 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.