STYRIC CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 6321/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s StyricChem (P) Ltd., which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) that sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was related to alleged bogus share capital received from six companies. The AO and the CIT(A) had concluded that the share capital was not genuine and constituted accommodation entries, primarily based on the lack of physical existence of the investor companies and the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, which was not adequately considered by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841065 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd., CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries; Bogus Share capital; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6321/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s Styric Chem (P) Ltd. 107, Patparganj Village New Delhi-110091 Vs. DCIT Circle 22(2) New Delhi – 110002 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAECS2262H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Sh. Saksham Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. AkhileshYadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.09.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1080667841(1)arising out of the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Circle-24(2), Delhi,for AY: 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing expandable polystyerneresion and other thermocool raw material. The turnover in this year was Rs 131 Crore (PB 18) and earned profit for this year was Rs 3.9 Crore (PB 18) which has been duly offered for taxation purposes. The return of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and the disallowance u/s 68 was made on account of alleged bogus share capital received by the assessee from six companies the details of which are as follows: Sr. No. Name of Share Applicant No. of share Share Nominal Value Share Premium Amount Total amount 1. Alirck Construction Pvt. Ltd. 88,000 8,80,000 58,08,000 66,88,000 2. Vajra (India) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 90,000 9,00,000 59,40,000 68,40,000 3. Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. ltd. 92,000 9,20,000 60,72,000 69,92,00 4. Everlook Tradex Pvt. Ltd. 95,000 9,50,000 62,70,000 72,20,000 5. Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. 85,000 8,50,000 56,10,000 64,60,000 6. Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. 85,000 8,50,000 56,10,000 64,60,000 Total 5,35,000 53,50,000 3,53,10,000 4,06,60,000 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 3. The ld. AO has drawn a conclusion with regard to these companies that the transaction are accommodation entries and para 3.22 of the assessment order, narrating conclusion of AO, are reproduced below: “3.22 The analysis made in the forgoing paragraphs in respect of each shareholders provesthat these Share capital are not genuine but are accommodation entries. A summary of the facts gathered are reproduced below: 1. The bank account of the company clearly shows that the amount to be transferred was credited and the same was debited on the same day or within a week. 2. There is no fixed assets reflecting in the balance sheet. 3. There is no verifiable business of the assessee or identifiable business/office premises. 4. The lender does not have any independent existence but is a paper company being operated, controlled by some other persons who provide accommodation entry for commission. 5. There is neither Fixed Assets nor any real business with stock/inventory. 6. These companies create artificial assets and liabilities in the form of bogus share premium and then investing or advancing them to other companies. 7. The notices u/s 133(6) issued by this office at the address provided by the assessee un-complied. 8. None of the company existed at the mentioned address, found out through physicalEnquires 9. In such a scenario, mere filing of PAN data, copy of Return filed, copy of Share Application form etc, from the said parties are not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the money as these do not facilitate cross verification. 10. These are, at best, only peripheral documents. Therefore, the alleged documents filed by the assessee are not sufficient for establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties.” 4. The same is sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and relevant part of the order of ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3.11 & 6.3.12 are reproduced below: “6.3.11 Similarly, in the present case, the fact that the entities from whom the assessee company raised enormous volume of share capital/premium did not respond to notices u/s 133(6) and could not be located at the address given by them in the account confirmations issued by them, would certainly raise doubts about their very existence. The lack of creditworthiness of the said investors as observed from the documentary evidenced including their financial statements and ITs reinforces the above. Analysis of bank statements of the assessee as well as the parties from Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) whom the amounts were credited reveal a similar pattern of high volume and high frequency debits and credits and rotation of funds among the same related entities. The fact that the above companies could not be located at the given address, the lack of creditworthiness as evidenced by the returns with Nil or meagre income, andthe very circular pattern of the transactions within the closed network of associated concerns clearly indicate that these were shell companies with whom the appellant stated to have carried out the transactions. In the light of the above, the appellant's contention that it has discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties is found to be unconvincing. 6.3.12 Though the appellant contended that it had submitted all documentary evidence before the A.O, it may be noted, that the mere fact of documentary compliance for e.g. that payments were made by cheque or that the applicants were companies, borne on the file of Registrar of Companies is not sufficient and the same were held to be neutral facts and did not prove that the transaction was genuine as held by the higher judicial authorities in the judgements discussed in the preceding paragraphs, as also held in the case of CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd.[2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi). Similar views were expressed by the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.). In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements as discussed above, the A.O's action in treating the entire share capital & Premium amount credited in the books of accounts during the relevant year as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is upheld and the appellant's grounds are dismissed.”’ 5. The ld. AR has submitted that all the relevant evidences were filed before the Assessing Officer and substantiated at the First Appellate stage and ld. AR has taken the bench across the paper book and submissions of the assessee available at page No. 270 – 298 of the paper book which were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) to submit how all necessary evidences where there which has been discarded without any reasoning. It was submitted that the documents like board resolution, Pan Card bank statement, details of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) directors, audited financial statement of the investor companies were provided. However, without pointing out any infirmity in them and mere suspicion the share application money has been considered to be bogus. Ld. AR for the Assessee contended that the notice which was issued to the investor companies u/s 133(6) of the Act were on incorrect address about which details were provided at appellate stage still the assessee’s submissions have not been considered. 6. On the contrary, ld. DR has submitted that all formal documents filed are merely formal and filing of these documents does not justify that transaction to be genuine when otherwise the financials of the investor companies show there are merely accommodation entries with no actual operators and the infrastructure. It was particularly submitted by ld. DR that the evidence with regard to correct address of investor was intentionally not provided to the Assessing Officer and the ends of justice will require restoring the issue to the files of ld. AO for verification of the status of the investor companies. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions as raised. The conclusion with regard to material grounds No. 3-5, are that these grounds relates to the aggregate addition of Rs.4,06,60,000/-made by Ld. AOu/s 68 and taxing the same u/s 115BBE on account of Share Capital money received from six parties alleging that the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions have not been proved by assessee company. Admittedly assesse filed evidences such as Confirmations, acknowledgment of ITRs of the parties, Financial statements of the parties, bank statement, PAN card, Share application letter, MOA & AOA of the parties, Board resolution of Parties etc., before Ld. AO and these documents/evidences are primarily foundation of proving any transaction to be genuine and establish identity and creditworthiness of parties. Though ld. Tax authorities were not inclined to accept these evidences we as we appreciate them it comes up that in regard to the investor company M/s Alrick Construction Pvt. Ltd. which contributed Rs. 66,88,000/-. It comes up that the assessee has allotted 88,000 share at Rs. 76 per share to M/s Alrick Construction Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year. At PB 107 is the copy of confirmation of M/s Alrick Construction Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investor company has confirmed that assessee has allotted Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 88000 equity shares at Rs. 76 per share and the consideration for which was paid through proper banking channel on 15.10.2016 and they further have submitted their complete address.PB 108-109 is the copy of bank statement of M/s Alrick Construction Pvt. Ltd. showing that the above-mentioned transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. Further showing the complete address of the investor, atPB 110 is the copy of acknowledgment of ITR of Ms Alrick Construction Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 showing that the investor company’s active address was available with the department and it is being regularly assessed to tax.Then at PB 111-123 is the copy of audited financial statement of M/s Alrick Construction Pvt. Ltd for AY 2017-18 and perusal of which would show that the investor company has a networth of more than Rs. 65.05 crore which is approx. 100 times of the amount invested in the shares of assessee company. 7.1 In regard to M/s Viira (India) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. from whom assesse is beneficiary of Rs. 68,40,000/- it comes up that the assessee has allotted 90,000 share at Rs. 76 per share to M/s Vijra (India) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year. At PB 124 is the copy of confirmation of M/s Vijra (India) Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investor company has confirmed that assessee has allotted 90000 equity shares at Rs. 76 per share and the consideration for which was paid through proper banking channel on 05.10.2016 and they have further submitted their complete address. At PB 125-126 is the copy of bank statement of M/s Vijra (India) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. showing that the above- mentioned transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. At PB 127 is the copy of PAN card of M/s Vijra (india) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. issued to them by the Department and at PB 128-129 is the copy of acknowledgment of ITR of M/s Vijra (India) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. For AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 showing that the investor company’s last address was in knowledge of department. Further at PB 130-141 is the copy of audited financial statement of M/s Vijra (India) Ispat Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 and perusal of which would show that the investor company has a networth of more than Rs. 45.61 crores which is approx. 66.68 times of the amount invested in the shares of assessee company. 7.2 Coming to M/s Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. from whom assesse has investment of Rs. 69,92,000/- it can be seen that the assessee has Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 9 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) allotted 92,000 share at Rs. 76 per share to M/s Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. during the impugned year. At PB 142 is the copy of confirmation of M/s Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investor company has confirmed that assessee has allotted 92,000 equity shares at Rs.76 per share and the consideration for which was paid through proper banking channel on 13.10.2016 and they have further submitted their complete address. The at PB143-144 is the copy of bank statement of M/s Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. showing that the above-mentioned transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. Further at PB 145 is the copy of acknowledgment of ITR of M/s Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. for AX 2017-18 showing that the investor company’s latest address was available with department and at PB 146-162 is the copy of audited financial statement of M/s Evalina Powertech systems Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 and perusal of which would show that the investor company has a networth of more than Rs. 14.75 crore which much more than the amount invested in the shares of assessee company. 7.3 In regard to investor M/s Everlook Tradex Pvt. Ltd. which has investment of Rs. 72,20,000/- it comes up that the assessee has allotted Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 10 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 95,000 share at Rs. 76 per share to M/s EvalinaPowertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year. At PB 163 is the copy of confirmation of M/s Everlook Tradex Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investor company has confirmed that assessee has allotted 92,000 equity shares at Rs. 76 per share and the consideration for which was paid through proper banking channel on 13.10.2016 & 14.10.2016 and they have further submitted their complete address. Further at PB 164-165 is the copy of bank statement of M/s Everlook Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Showing that the above-mentioned transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. Then at PB 166 is the copy of acknowledgment of ITR of M/s Evalina Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 showing that the investor company’s present address was in knowledge of department. At PB 167-184 is the copy of audited financial statement of M/s Everlook Tradex Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 and perusal of which would show that the investor company has a networth of more than Rs. 48.91 crore which is approx. 67.74 times of the amount invested in the shares of assessee company. Further PB 180 is the schedule of investment in their financial statement wherein they have duly shown the investment made by them in the shares of assessee company. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 11 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 7.4 In regard to M/s Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. which invested Rs. 64,60,000/-. It come up that the assessee has allotted 85,000 share at Rs. 76 per share to M/s Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant year.At PB 185 is the copy of confirmation of M/s Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investor company has confirmed that assessee has allotted 92,000 equity shares at Rs.76 per share and the consideration for which was paid through proper banking channel on 18.10.2016 & 19.10.2016. Then at PB 186 is the copy of bank statement of M/s Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. showing that the above-mentioned transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. At PB 187 is the copy of acknowledgment of ITR of M/s Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 showing that the investor company’s current address was duly informed to the department and it is being regularly assessed to tax. Then at PB 188-200 is the copy of audited financial statement of M/s Alberik Marketing Network Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 and perusal of which would show that the investor company has a networth of more than Rs. 56.85 crore which is approx. 80.02 times of the amount invested in the shares of assessee company. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 12 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 7.5 Coming to M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. which has made investment of Rs. 64,60,000/-. It can be seen that the assessee has allotted 85,000 share at Rs. 76 per share to M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. during the impugned year. At PB 201 & 230 is the copy of share application form filed by M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. before the board of assessee company requesting them to allot 85,000 shares at Rs. 76 per share to the investor company which has been duly acknowledged by the assessee company. PB 203 & 233 is the copy of resolution passed in the board meeting of M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. resolving to investing Rs. 64,60,000/- in the shares of assessee company and PB 204 & 231 is the copy of confirmation of M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investor company has confirmed that assessee has allotted 985,000 equity shares at Rs.76 per share and the consideration for which was paid through proper banking channel on 13.10.2016.At PB 205 & 235 is the copy of list of directors of M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. andPB 206-228 & 236-258 is the copy of MOA, certificate of incorporation and AOA of M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd.PB 234 is the copy of bank statement of M/s Kanhaiya sImpex Pvt. Ltd. showing that the above-mentioned transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. PB 259-267 is the copy of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 13 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) audited financial statement of M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 and perusal of which would show that the investor company has a networth of more than Rs. 5.41 crores which is much more that the amount invested in the shares of assessee company. 9. The aforesaid evidences are ordinarily available with an assessee to discharge the burden u/s 68 of the Act but AO has called them ‘peripheral documents’, and discarded their evidentiary value. The conclusions arrived are very general and based on bald allegations. We are of considered view that such vital documents cannot be brushed aside by terming same to be ‘peripheral documents’, without independently collecting evidences which conclusively establish that these vital documents are, manufactured and pretentious, if not fabricated or forged. This should be actually an exercise of lifting the veil of investors and connecting same with some evidences with the beneficiary. No such effort is made by AO and the conclusions are primarily based on suspicion that the bank account of the company clearly shows that the amount to be transferred was credited and the same was debited on the same day or within a week or that it had no assets. However, Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 14 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) source of credits in these companies was legally not to be explained by assesse and AO has not made any effort to show if there were any circular transactions or layering where any of the companies or their directors were involved. Thus its mere suspicion which howsoever strong cannot take place of proof to attribute an deemed income to assessee. 9. Ld. CIT(A) has in fact restricted his findings to failure of investors to respond on notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. In regard to the same it comes up that Assessing Officer mentions that investors have same auditors, however, that in itself cannot be something to draw any inference against the investor companies. 9.1 Further, we find that the inspector’s reports were not confronted to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. At the same time, while filing submissions before ld. CIT(A) copy of which is available at page No. 270- 298 assessee had submitted as follows: “In any case without prejudice to the above, just for the caution the assessee's rebuttal of the said report are as under: a) In respect of M/s Everlook Tradex Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that the address visited by the inspector is incorrect which is evident from the address given by assessee to Ld. AO enclosed at PB 105 and also mentioned in the return of the investor for AY 2017-18 enclosed at PB 166 is different from what has been mentioned in the assessment order in para 3.11 in clause (a) at page 10 and Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 15 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) visited by the Ld. Inspector and Ld. OS. Therefore, nothing adverse could be read in this regards. Enquiries made by Ld. A0 on the incorrect address has no legal sanctity and more so when latest addresses all the investor parties were available on the record. It is also submitted that no where in the assessment order assessing officer has doubted the genuineness of the evidences furnished by the assessee company. b) In respect of M/s Alberik Marketing Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that address visited by the inspector is incorrect which is evident from the address given by assessee to Ld. AO enclosed at PB 106 and also mentioned in the bank statement of the investor company enclosed at PB 186 is different from what has been mentioned in the assessment order in para 3.11 in clause (b) at page 10 and visited by the Ld. Inspector and Ld. OS. Therefore, nothing adverse could be read in this regards. Enquiries made by Ld. AO on the incorrect address has no legal sanctity and more so when latest addresses all the investor parties were available on the record. It is also submitted that no where in the assessment order assessing officer has doubted the genuineness of the evidences furnished by the assessee company. c) In respect of M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that address visited by the inspector is incorrect which is evident from the address given by assessee to Ld. AO enclosed at PB 106 and also mentioned in the bank statement of the investor company enclosed at PB 234 is different from what has been mentioned in the assessment order in para 3.11 clause (c) at page 11 and visited by the Ld. Inspector and Ld. OS. Therefore, nothing adverse could be read in this regards. Enquiries made by Ld. AO on the incorrect address has no legal sanctity and more so when latest addresses all the investor parties were available on the record. It is also submitted that no where in the assessment order assessing officer has doubted the genuineness of the evidences furnished by the assessee company. d) In respect of M/s Evaline Powertech Systems Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that address visited by the inspector is incorrect which is evident from the address given by assessee to Ld. AO enclosed at PB 105 and also mentioned in the bank statement of the investor company enclosed at PB 143 is different from what has been mentioned in the assessment order in para 3.11 clause (d) at page 11 and visited by the Ld. Inspector and Ld. OS. Therefore, nothing adverse could be read in this regards. Enquiries made by Ld. AO on the incorrect address has no legal sanctity and more so when latest addresses all the investor parties were available on the record. It is also submitted that nowhere in the assessment order assessing officer has doubted the genuineness of the evidences furnished by the assessee company. e) In respect of M/s Vajra (India) Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that address visited by the inspector is incorrect which is evident from the address given by assessee to Ld. AO enclosed at PB 105 and also mentioned in the bank statement of the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 16 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) investor company enclosed at PB 125-126 is different from what has been mentioned in the assessment order in para 3.11 clause (e) at page 12 and visited by the Ld. Inspector and Ld. OS. Therefore, nothing adverse could be read in this regards. Enquiries made by Ld. AO on the incorrect address has no legal sanctity and more so when latest addresses all the investor parties were available on the record. It is also submitted that no where in the assessment order assessing officer has doubted the genuineness of the evidences furnished by the assessee company. Thus, from the above it is evidently clear that the said report and field enquiry is done on patently incorrect premises and therefore cannot be relied upon and hence deserves to be ignored.” 10. Though ld. DR had submitted that as these submissions were before ld. CIT(A) as additional evidences, Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity. We are of the considered view that at one end these reports were not confronted to assesse so there was no question to file these fact before AO at the same time when CIT(A) has not considered and relied these evidence to benefit the assessee there was no question of calling for remand report. 11. However, the aforesaid submissions of the assessee convince us that ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error to leave out of consideration the material evidence which have been discussed above only on the allegation that investor company did not respond to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. When these submissions were before ld. CIT(A) he could have exercised his co-terminus powers to call for report from the Assessing Officer to verify the submissions Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 17 ITA No. 6321/Del/2025 M/s StyricChem (P) ltd. (AY: 2017-18) and in any case the submissions as made are sufficient to indicate that non response of the investors cannot be basis to discard other substantive evidences filed by the assessee and which we have discussed above. 12. In light of aforesaid discussion the grounds are accordingly sustained and the appeal is allowed. The impugned addition stand deleted. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026 Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 26.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "