PARAMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DURGAPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

ITA No.1409/KOL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Parama Construction Pvt. Ltd.

ITO, Ward 2(3)

MSAV-20, Bengal Ambuja City Center, Durgapur-713216,

Aaykar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal

West Bengal

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN No. AAFCP6274M

Vs.

Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

> Date of hear ing: 05 .02 .2026 Date of pronouncement: 26 .02.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] dated 15.12.2021 for the AY 2012-13.

that the assessee did not receive any notice from the ld. CIT (A) fixing the date on 15.12.2021, and therefore, it was only on 15.11.2023, the assessee came to know about the appellate order having been passed and hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal of 670 days. In our opinion, the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and we condone the same and admit the appeal for adjudication.

- 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹78,26,714/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of share application money received by the assessee. - 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2012, declaring total income of ₹12,03,650/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and also replied by the assessee from time to time. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has received share application money of ₹78,26,714/- during the year.v The submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee did not find favour with the AO and the ld. AO finally made the addition of ₹78,26,714/- on account of share application money received during the year in the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2015. - 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. - 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has received the share application money from the sister concern. We note that the share application money pending for allotment on 31.03.2011, was

₹2,34,00,000/-, whereas as on 31.03.2012, the corresponding figure of share application money was ₹3,12,26,714/-. This We note that the assessee received ₹78,26,714/- during the year from the same party. We note that the share application money received in the earlier assessment years were accepted by the ld. AO and were not doubted. We also note that the summons were issued u/s 131 of the Act to the Director of the assessee company who duly appeared before the ld. AO and statement was recorded. We also note that the balance sheets, ITRs of the subscriber M/s PKB Finvest Private Limited are available from page no. 72 onwards which corroborates that the subscriber is a group company and was also subject to scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( for A.Y. 2014-15 and the copy of assessment order is available from page no. 82 and 85 of the Paper Book. We have also examined ITR, bank statements of the subscriber during the impugned year. Since the year involved is A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of Exotica Enclave Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO, in ITA No. 2003/KOL/2025, wherein it has held as under:-

"9. Coming to the justification of share premium, it is noted that, the Director of the assessee had given the explanation regarding the same when he was examined u/s 131 of the Act. We also note that,the year involved is assessment year 2012-13 and the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2012, is prospective and is applicable from 01.04.2013 effective from A.Y. 2013-14. We observe that, the amendment to Section 68 by inserting proviso is not retrospective and is applicable prospectively as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. delivered in Income Tax Appeal No.1613 of 2014, dated 20.03.2017, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :-

"We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus, it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore, it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre-proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) in the context to the preamended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit."

- 10. In view of the above discussions and facts , we are of the view that, the assessee has discharged its burden of proof by satisfying all three conditions as envisaged u/s 68 of the Act and therefore no addition u/s 68 of the Act is called for. Consequently, we direct theAO to delete the addition of Rs.55,00,000/- which was retained by the Ld. CIT(A) by setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." - 3.4. Therefore, considering the facts on records and also the decision as stated above, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. - 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR)

(JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Kolkata, Dated: 26.02.2026

Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

- 1. The Appellant - 2. The Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. DR, ITAT, - 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER,

True Copy//

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata