PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S NAVNITA DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED

OD-13 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE

IA NO: GA/1/2025 in ITAT/80/2025

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VS M/S. NAVNITA DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED

BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 19th November, 2025.

Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. …for the appellant

Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Ms. Alisha Das, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Naskar, Adv. ..for the respondent.

The Court: By this appeal the appellant challenges an order dated 9th September, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue that the Tribunal had deleted an addition of Rs.1,21,50,000/- by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of share capital/share premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. From the records, it is seen that the assessee/respondent is a Non- Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and has produced registration certificate, Form 2 filed before the ROC to establish that it is not a shell company and has produced all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing

2 Officer has noted that the assessee has received share application money of Rs.1,21,50,000/- by issuing 6075 equity shares of face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.1990/- per share to M/s. Zeus Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also furnished the details of share subscribers from whom money was raised and even furnished the details of the Managing Director of the subscribing company, but the assessee has failed to encourage the Managing Director of the subscribing company who has not appeared before the Assessing Officer under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company being the NBFC has produced all the documents and information not only before the Assessing Officer but also before the Tribunal and the quantum of tax is less than Rs.2 crores. This appeal falls within the rigors of the Circular No.9/2024 dated 17th September, 2024 as the monetary limit of the tax effect is much less than Rs.2 crores and as such, the appeal is not admitted and hence, the same is dismissed. IA NO:GA/1/2025 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

(UDAY KUMAR, J.) sm