GULMOHAR TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

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 10.102024 for the AY 2011-12.

3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company and has filed the return of income on 26.09.2011, declaring total income at ₹12,23,346/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 11.01.2012. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2018, on the ground that the income chargeable to tax amounting to ₹43,32,00,000/- has escaped assessment. The assessee complied with the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by filing the return of income and also requested the ld. AO to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The reasons were accordingly supplied by the ld. AO to the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened after the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing that Shri Anand Sharma, was involved in giving accommodation entries through paper/ shell companies of which assessee is one of the beneficiaries. The ld. AO received information that Shri Anand Sharma has been Blank Blank 4.2. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above and the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above, we are inclined to quash the reassessment proceedings 4.3. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, we find that these shares were held since earlier assessment years (since A.Y. 2007-08) and have been shown in the balance sheets in the successive assessment years. We note that during the year the assessee has only sold these shares and monetized the investments. Therefore, the addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act and the money cannot be treated as unexplained money as has been held by Hon'ble High Court in case of PCIT vs. Tulsyan and Sons (P.) Ltd. [2025] 174 taxmann.com 37 (Calcutta)[16-04-2025], ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 vide order dated 16th April, 2025 which has been followed by the coior. 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 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 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. 4.4. 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 decision , even on merits the assessee has a strong case in its favour.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2026.