OD 18 ORDER SHEET ITAT/146/2026 IA NO:GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2, KOLKATA VS BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 8th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. J. Khan, Adv. Mr. B. Sengupta, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for either of the parties. There is a delay of 216 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant presses for admission of a substantial question of law being “a) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.6,75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the assessee had 2 failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transactions ?” Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submits that as the assessee has established the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors in respect of the genuineness of transactions no addition could be made by the assessing officer. The learned respondent/assessee also relies on the paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned tribunal’s order. The tribunal’s order dated 17.01.2025 reads as follows:- “6. Upon hearing the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the record and the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and developers in real estate in different parts of the country. The share applicant company is regularly assessed to tax and its accounts are audited and it is holding valid license to party as NBFC company granted Reserve Bank of India. It is pertinent to mention herein that the share applicant company return for AY 2012-13 was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act without any further quarry as the return for the AY 2009-10 of the applicant company was also accepted by the Department in the reassessment proceedings. There is no dispute that the share applicants audited financial statement since AY 2009-10 and 2012-13 have been filed by the assessee. We further find that in the present case that the shareholders are not Benamidar or fictitious person. Rather the share holder company is a prominent company holding RBI license/There is no finding that the share holder company is a paper company or there was 3 any adverse report from any wing of the department against the share holder company a remand report is also in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and going over the remand report it appears to us the AO in sending the remand report has clearly held that In compliance to the said letter the Director of the assessee company Sri Anup Kr. Lakhotia appeared on the scheduled date of hearing and informed that he is also the Director of the share applicant of the assessee company i.e. Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company. A statement on oath of Sri Anup Kr. Lakhotia is taken u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act. In the sworn statement when he was asked to inform about the companies where he was director. He produced a list of companies downloaded from ROC website that shows that he is director of total thirteen companies. He was asked to name the promoter directors of the company Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company. He failed to remember the names. Then he was asked whether he had ever heard the name of Ramesh Poddar or not. He flatly replied ‘No’. In this context it may be said that Sri Anup Lakhotia stated that he became Director of Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company in the year 2012. Whereas the report of the Investigation wing shows that Ramesh Poddar was Director of the company Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company upto 1st September 2010. So it is surprising to note that the Managing Director of the assessee company never heard the name of Ramesh Poddar. We further find that during the course of Remand proceedings the director of the share applicant company as well as the appellant company, Shri Anup Lakhotia appeared before the AO and his statement was recorded on oath on 09.04.2019 wherein, Shri Anup 4 Lakhotia also stated that the source of funds of M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd were already filed in the paper book and that shares issued to M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd were still held by M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd only. The share applicant company is active and regularly files its income tax returns. As per the details tabulated by the AO in his Remand Report, M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd received such funds from the following 14 entities and the following documents regarding the 14 entities were submitted by the appellant during the course of Remand proceedings: Sl. No. Name of the Co./party Money given to Samsung through Bank Income of the Company/party during the year 133(6) sent Reply received Documents furnished Statement on oath taken 1. Anup Kumar Lakhotia 10,00,000 26,04,745/- 25-02- 2019 Yes Computation copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia 2. UtkarshVanijya (P) Ltd. 20,00,000 3,794/- 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of and Profit and balance sheet Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 3. Parimal Distributors (P) Ltd 15,00,000 NIL 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Strike off 4. Tirupati Stocist & Traders (P) Ltd. 15,00,000 Returned not field for A/Y 2012-13 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks insufficient address Strike off 5. Ability Dealers Pvt. Ltd 10,00,000 Returned not field for A/Y 2012-13 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 6. Dhankalash Vanijya (P) Ltd. 10,00,000 NIL 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of 5 remarks No such address found balance sheet and Profit and account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 7. Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd 40,00,000 3,03,83,492/- 25-02- 2019 Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Director 8. Surip Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 1,30,00,000 20,549/- 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Copy of ITR, Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 9. Neha Marketing (P) Ltd. 1,40,00,000 1,46,287/- 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks insufficient address Copy of ITR, Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 10. Esteem Tradecom P Ltd. 10,00,000 23,081/- 25-02- 2019 Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Yogesh kabr Director 11. Essen Marketing Pvt Ltd. 45,00,000 NIL 25-02- 2019 Copy of ITR, Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC and profit and 12. Nanchi Marketing (P) Ltd. 15,00,000 Returned not field for A/Y 2012-13 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 6 13. Bhawani Alumina Products (P) Ltd. 15,00,000 54,22,656/- 25-02- 2019 1… Computation Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Director 14. Lakhotia Diagnostic Service (P) Ltd 20,00,000 40,059/- 25-02- 2019 Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Director 7. We further find that in order to substantiate the share premium is charged, the assessee company also submitted the CA certificate towards calculation of intrusive value per share for FY 2010-11. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) after discussing the entire facts of the case mentioned three main points which is as follows: i. No fresh funds have been infused in SEPL since F.Y:2008-09, which does not help the AO’s case that own unaccounted funds of the appellant company were being routed in the garb of share capital, ii. The infusion of funds in the share applicant concern, SEPL during F.Y: 2008-09 has been specifically examined and accepted by the AO in the assessment order dated 15.03.2011 for AY: 2009-10, iii. The purchase of investments was accepted by the AO in earlier F.Y’s and the sale of existing investments during AY: 2012-13 and subsequent reinvestment in the assessee company also stands accepted in view of the assessment order and appellate order for AY: 2012-13. The AO, I find, has failed to bring forth any other facts supported documentary evidences to 7 refute these facts placed by the appellant. The mere fact that funds from various entities to SEPL were paid towards the aforesaid share application on the same day or the subsequent day by SEPL, cannot render the investments made by SEPL in the assessee company during AY: 2012-13 as bogus. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) after discussing the entire facts of the case, documents placed by the assessee as well as considering the judicial orders of the ITAT as well as High Court has held thus: “The fact is that in the instant case the appellant had duly produced all the ingredients prescribed u/s 68 of the Act with respect to the share application money, and while not being bound thereafter, to produce reasons and rationale for the payment of premiums, the appellant and investor nevertheless provided all the necessary reasons to the satisfaction of a prudent assessing authority. Once this was admittedly done by the appellant, he had discharged the onus cast upon him by law. Thereafter, the onus has shifted to the AO to either accept the evidence and/or reasoning adduced by the appellant, or to reject it based upon equally compelling evidence and or reasoning bringing on record why the evidence/ reasoning adduced by the appellant could not be acceptable to a prudent person. I find that while this onus has been satisfactorily discharged by the appellant, the AO has not brought on record any reasons for controverting the evidence and reasoning adduced by the appellant. The appellant, during appeal, has cited several judgements in his 8 favour that underline the propositions of law that have driven the above discussions. These have been carefully studied and some have been cited in the earlier part of this order. Since the propositions of law relied upon in the above discussions have already become trite law, the same have been used to make the above discussions. In these circumstances and for the reasons elaborately discussed above, I cannot lend support to the action of the AO in this regard and the addition of Rs. 6,75,00,000/- u/s 68 stands deleted. This ground is therefore allowed.” 9. Going over the entire facts of the case as well as discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.” After hearing the parties at length and perusing the order of the tribunal dated 17.01.2025 as well as the assessment order dated 26.12.2017, we do not find any substantial question of law to be formulated by us. As such, the appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) B.Pal