DCIT, CENTRAL CEICLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 296/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Revenue's appeal against the order of the CIT (A) which had deleted an addition of \\u20b96,70,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, concerning unexplained share application money received by Jupiter International Limited during the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which clarified that in an unabated assessment, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780137 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P.N. BARNWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 296/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT, Central Circle (4) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti pally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal Vs. Jupiter International Limited Unnayanam 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACJ6956B Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Shri P Sarkar, Ms. Nandini Nandini Sureka, ARs Revenue by : Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR Date of hearing: 11.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.10.2024 for the AY 2009-10. 02. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approval from the competent authorities, which took quite a long time Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 296/KOL/2025 Jupiter International Limited: A.Y. 2009-10 and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 03. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹6,70,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained share application money received by the assessee during the year. 04. The facts in brief are that this is a second round of litigation before us. A search of action was conducted on 24.03.2015 on the Jupiter Group. Order u/s 153A/ 143(3) was passed on 31.12.2016, making an addition of inter alia of ₹6,70,00,000/- which was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 14.07.2017 by holding that the addition made by the ld. AO were not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search and therefore, the ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make the addition in an unabated assessment on the date of search. Thereafter, the matter travelled to Tribunal and Tribunal restore the appeal back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh. Accordingly, the ld. AO issued notice to the assessee for appearing and filing the necessary documents, which were duly complied with by the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. AO noted that the director of the assessee company Shri Ranjan Kumar Das and Shri Santanu Biswas, did not appear in person. Finally, the ld. AO again made an addition of ₹6,70,00,000/- by treating the share application money as unexplained money in the books of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 254/153A/143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 296/KOL/2025 Jupiter International Limited: A.Y. 2009-10 CIT (A) again allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into consideration the contention and reply of the assessee by holding that this being unabated assessment on the date of search and there being no seized incriminating material found during the said search. Therefore, the ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make the addition by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC). 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that a search action was conducted on the assessee on 24.03.2015 and the assessment year involved is 2009-10. Apparently, no proceedings were pending on the date of search and the time period to issue u/s 143(2) of the Act has also expired. Therefore, the assessment in unabated assessment on the date of search and in terms of provisions of Section 153A of the Act, the ld. AO has jurisdiction to make any addition to the income of the assessee only on the basis of sized incriminating material and not otherwise. In the present case, the ld. AO has referred to the statement of the Alok Garodia for making the statement by treating the same as incriminating material whereas as a matter of fact the incriminating material cannot be in the form of statement of the third party. Now, the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. ltd. (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled once and for all that in an unabated assessment year, the ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make the addition unless there is incriminating material found and seized during the course of search qua the said addition. In our opinion, the ld. CIT (A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 296/KOL/2025 Jupiter International Limited: A.Y. 2009-10 order. Accordingly, we uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 06. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 09.10.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "