OVERSURE AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3),, KOLKATA

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.02.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014.

Shri A.N.Keshri, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Subrata Aich, Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee company had sold 3800 shares of Sarbari Vincom Pvt. Ltd and 8000 shares of Sadgati Trading Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.40 lakhs to M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had questioned about the amount of Rs.59 lakhs. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to both Sarbari Vincom Pvt. Ltd and Sadgati Trading Pvt. Ltd., who had confirmed the sale of their shares to the assessee. It was the submission that it was this purchase which was sold by the assessee to M/s Jalaram 2 ITANo.517/Kol/2025 Finvest Ltd. It was the submission that in the course of assessment on the basis of statement recorded from the Directors of M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd., the transaction of the sale of the shares by the assessee to M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd. was treated as unexplained cash credit of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer for permission to cross-examine the Director of M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd., which was not provided to the assessee. It was further submission that this was a sale transaction and the sale consideration has been recorded in the books and the books having not been rejected, the sale consideration recorded in the books cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. In respect of specific question raised by the Bench to the ld. AR that the assessee has sold the shares to M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd. and it was the duty of the assessee to produce the Directors of M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd. to confirm the transaction especially when the Assessing Officer was making a statement that the Directors of M/s Jalaram Finvest has denied the transaction, it was submitted by the ld.AR that the assessee had repeatedly requested the Assessing Officer for an opportunity to cross-examine, however, the same was not provided by the Assessing Officer.

In reply, ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that the shares of Sarbari Vincom Pvt. Ltd had been purchased in the earlier years. The same has been sold during the 3 ITANo.517/Kol/2025 impugned year. This is evident from the Note to the balance sheet which is placed at page 41 of the Paper Book, which reads as under :-

Similarly other shares have also been purchased during the earlier assessment years and have been sold during the impugned year. Further the shares of M/s Sadgati Trading Pvt. Ltd. have been purchased allegedly during the impugned year and sold during the impugned year. This is for Rs.40 lakhs. A perusal of the page 41 of the Paper Book which has been extracted above shows that the purchase was for Rs.20 lakhs in the case of M/s Sarbari Vincom Pvt. Ltd.. Similarly in page 17 and 18n of the paper book, the transactions shows the break-up of Rs.59 lakhs which reads as under :-

In regard to the submission of the ld.AR that this is a sale transaction and sale consideration has been recorded, therefore, the same cannot be treated as cash credit. This argument of the ld. AR does not stand, insofar as the sale consideration itself is in question and the shares which were allegedly transferred physically. As there is no proof the shares have actually been transferred and the share certificates numbers have also not