SUPERDEAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 726/KOL/2025

AI Insights

Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of \\u20b9 9,32,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on the premise that the sale of investments was not genuine. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including purchase bills, sale bills, and bank statements, and noted that the investments had been accepted in earlier assessment years without any adverse inference. The Tribunal also considered similar cases and decisions, concluding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776377 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs Pawanputra Advertising Private Limited, PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANAT KUMAR RAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDARTH AGARWAL; ISSUING SUMMONS US
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Retraction; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Block assessment; Time period of passing order; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 132; 68; 131; 133(6); 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.726/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2022-23) Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Sidha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal Vs. ITO, Wad 5(1), Kolkata ITO, Ward 5(1), Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-70069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS7472E Assessee by : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2025 for the AY 2022-23. 02. The only issue raised by the assessee in both the grounds is against the confirmation of addition of ₹9,32,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of sale of investments by invoking provisions of Section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 26.03.2025, declaring total income of ₹1,94,410/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), for the reason of “information in verification cases uploaded through CRIU” as per the DDIT (Inv), Unit 1(1), Kolkata. The ld. AO observed that the assessee is not doing any genuine business activity or making any genuine investments. The ld. AO observed that the sale of investments of ₹9,32,00,000/- was not genuine sale of shares, as all the companies whose shares were sold were not doing any business activity nor they are holding any business assets except share capital and share premium in their balance sheets. The ld. AO thereafter discussed the modus operandi of how these companies are floated and exchanged hands to yield undue benefit to the beneficiaries through accommodation entries. Therefore, the ld. AO concluded that the assessee company has sold bogus shares and therefore the said transactions in such shares of ₹9,32,00,000/- were also bogus and accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 04. The ld. CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee company has sold unlisted shares which were not invested in real companies and therefore, sale consideration realized during the year was apparently bogus in nature to provide accommodation entries only. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the principle / theory of human probabilities while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 05. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the shares purchased by the assessee in the preceding assessment years were Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 sold during the impugned year and total sale consideration of ₹9,32,00,000/- was realized. The ld. AR submitted that these shares were purchased and acquired in the F.Y. 2012-13 and the bills of purchases are enclosed in the paper book from page no. 442 to 458. The ld. AR submitted that during the year the assessee has sold his shares and sales bill which are attached and available in Paper Book from page no. 459 to 462. The ld. AR submitted that all these documents were placed before the ld. AO along with bank statements of the buyer companies as well as the bank statements of the assessee company. However, the ld. AO has not examined these details and passed the order without considering the sale details and other evidences placed before him. The ld. AR also referred to the “statement of investments” which is available at page no. 430 of the Paper Book and submitted that the assessee has duly shown these investments in the books of account which is evidenced with proper bills and vouchers, bank statements and therefore, the reliance by the ld. AO on DDIT Investigation report is wrong and is against the facts on record. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO has not pointed out any defect of deficiency in the evidences filed by the assessee. The ld. AR also submitted that even the ld. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the buyer companies which were duly replied and copy of acknowledgement of the replies filed by these companies in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act are available at page no. 431 to 441 of the Paper Book. Therefore, the transactions which are accepted by the Revenue one year as genuine cannot be discredited with the color of ingenuity and being bogus when these investments were sold. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on series of decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Pawanputra Advertising Private Limited IT(SS)A No. 144 & 145/Kol/2024 AY 2019-20 & 2020- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 21 and others order dated 26.08.2025 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited, in ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 order dated 16th April, 2025. 06. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on records. We find that the only dispute is sale of unlisted equity shares to various parties thereby realizing total sales consideration of ₹- 9,32,00,000/-. We note that the investments were made in private unlisted equity shares A.Y. 2012-13. We note that in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 the scrutiny proceedings were initiated and assessments were accordingly framed vide orders dated 20.05.2019 and 10.02.2021 and these investments were not doubted at all. We note that the subject matter of scrutiny proceedings in A.Y. 2018-19 was investments in private unlisted equities. Thus, it is clear that over all these years the investments were not doubted by the department. These investments made in the A.Y. 2012-13 were partly sold at cost by the assessee during the instant assessment year which realized ₹9,32,00,00,000/- the purchases whereof were accepted by the Revenue right from A.Y. 2012-13 till the instant assessment year. We have also noted that the assessee has filed before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) all the evidences qua the purchases and sale of shares. The assessee has filed all the evidences qua the purchasers such as ITRs, names, addresses, audited balance sheets, bank statements, confirmations, etc. proving the identity, creditworthiness of the purchasers and genuineness of the transactions. We note that even the purchasing companies have filed their evidences as called for by the ld. AO comprising all the evidences as stated above. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 07. We observe that the department has accepted all these investments in the earlier assessment years, even in the scrutiny assessments and had not drawn any adverse interference. Therefore, in our opinion when these investments were accepted by the revenue in the year of purchase and subsequent years till the year of sale, then the same cannot be doubted when these were sold during the instant financial year. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of ACIT Vs Pawanputra Advertising Private Ltd. (Supra) wherein the coordinate bench has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “`7. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record including the written submissions dated 21.04.2025 and paper books No. 1 (page No. 1 to 357) ,paper book no. 2 (page No. 1 to 354 and paper book 3 (Case Laws). We find that the only dispute is sale of part unlisted equity shares to various parties thereby realizing total sales consideration of ₹11,56,20,000/-. We note that the assessee raised money by issue of equity shares in A.Y. 2008-09 of Rs. 64,85,49,000/- . We also note that entire funds raised were invested in unlisted equity shares in AY 2011-12. We note that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny only for this reason and the money raised by the assessee was accepted by the department and no adverse interference was drawn. We note that in A.Y. 2010-11 also, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and all the money share capital /share premium was accepted. Thereafter the investments were made in private equity shares which were unlisted in A.Y. 2011-12. Similarly 2017-18 the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and investments were not doubted at all. Thus it is clear that over all these years the investments were not doubted by the department. These investments made in the A.Y. 20111-12 were partly sold at cost by the assessee during the instant assessment year which realized ₹11,56,20,000/- which were accepted by the Revenue right from A.Y. 2011-12 till the instant assessment year. We have also noted that the assessee has filed before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) all the evidences qua the purchases and sale of shares. The assessee has filed all the evidences qua the purchasers such as ITRs, names, addresses, audited balance sheets, bank statements, confirmations, etc. proving the identity, creditworthiness of the purchasers and genuineness of the transactions. We note that even the purchasing companies have filed their evidences as called for by the ld. AO comprising all the evidences as stated above. The ld. CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that apart from the assessee , purchasing companies had also filed all the evidences before the ld. AO however the ld. AO had not brought on record any independent and substantive evidences pointing out any defect or deficiency in the said evidences. The ld. CIT (A) finally noted that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and also the genuineness of the transactions by filing all these documents and thus, discharged its initial burden. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 8. We observe that the ld. CIT (A) also noted that the department has accepted all these investments in the earlier assessment years, even in the scrutiny assessments and had not drawn any adverse interference. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity/anomaly in the appellate order of the ld. CIT (A), who has passed a very reasoned and speaking order after following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT VS. Dataware Private Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the co-ordinate benches on the same issue namely; M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) &M/s Ashtvinayak Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra). We have perused the decisions in the above referred two decisions of the coordinate benches followed by the ld. CIT (A) and find that the issue is exactly similar as before us in the present case. The operative part of M/s Ashtvinayak Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) extracted below: - 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials as placed before us. The issue for adjudication before us is in respect of confirmation of addition by ld CIT(A) as made by the AO on the ground that the identity and credentials of the purchasers are suspicious. We observe that the assessee has been in the regular business of purchase and sales of investments over the years as corroborated by the materials placed before us. Even the sales proceeds received during the current financial year were in respect of sale of shares /investments partly out of opening balance and partly out of current purchases as is apparent from the following chart placed before us:- 9.1. The assessee has also filed movement of investments over the years which showed that the phenomenon of purchase and sale of shares/investments was regular feature of the assessee’s business. This is also undisputed that the assessee company had raised share capital (including premium) amounting to Rs.119,84,67,000/- in financial year 2010-11, relevant to AY 2011-12 and the capital so raised in AY 2011-12 was invested in shares/securities and accounted for in the books of accounts which were audited and audited accounts are placed at page no. 102 to 111 of PB Vol.-1. We also note that the assessment for AY 2011-12 was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2014 a copy of which is placed at page no. 276 and 277 of PB Vol.-1 and the neither the share capital/share premium nor the investments out of that source were doubted by the AO. 9.2. We also note that similar issue was involved in the case of M/S Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT ,Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata, a group concern of the Rashmi Group of Companies ,which was also subjected to search u/s 132(1) of the Act in the same search proceedings. We note that the coordinate bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No. I.T.(S.S.)A.No.53/Kol/2022 A.Y.2019-20 vide order dated 01.09.2023 involving the same issue of addition of sale of shares/investments by the AO on the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 ground that identity and credentials of the purchasers of shares/investments were suspicious. The operative part of the order is extracted as under: “6.1.We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. First we deal with the issue relating to the undated detailed order passed by the Assessing Officer even after the prescribed date of limitation for passing the assessment order for the assessment year under consideration which is other than the short cryptic order as reproduced above and which did not even bear any Document Identification Number, (in short “DIN”)as mandated vide CBDT Circular No.19 of 2019. 6.1. As mentioned in the said CBDT circular no. 19 of 2019 and as also further held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. [2023[ 149 taxmann.com 238 (Del), any communication without mentioning of the DIN in its body is to be treated as non-est. Therefore, the subsequent undated assessment order and without any DIN mentioned in the order, and passed after the limitation period prescribed for passing of the assessment order cannot be taken cognisance of. 7. So far as the original order (extracted above) passed by the Assessing Officer is concerned, we are in agreement with the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the same is a small and cryptic order and the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer in the said order in a mechanical manner without any discussion on merits and without pointing out any justifying material warranting such additions. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer by way of such an cryptic order are not sustainable as per law. …….. 11. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record.We find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel of the assessee which have been discussed above in detail. We note that it is an admitted fact on record that assesseeraised share capital at a premium in FY 2005-06 which was accepted by the AO in scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The capital so raised was invested in shares of Pvt. Ltd. of various companies. These shares were sold during the year under consideration to different parties, corporate/non- corporate. The sale proceeds have come in assessee’s bank account through banking channel. 11.1. In its normal course of business, the assessee had made purchases and sale of investments as under which is tabulated as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 11.2. The shares were held by the assessee as investments and were sold at the cost of acquisition by the assessee. Hence, there is no profit/loss on such sale of investment. We also look at the movement of investment held by the assessee, which is tabulated below: FY AY Opening Purchase Sales Amount Closing Balance byA.O. 2014-15 2015-16 63,42,00,000 63,42,00000 2015-16 2016-17 63,42,00,000 42,44,960 18,344,960 62,01,00,000 1,83,44,960 2016-17 2017-18 62,01,00,000 56,27,44,459 468,499,459 71,43,45,000 46,84,99,459 2017-18 2018-19 71.43.45,000 1,55,17,29,538 2,062,064,910 20,40,09,628 2,06,20,64,910 2018-19 2019-20 20,40,09,628 66, 47, 64, 007 170,560,000 69,82,13,635 17,05,60,000 Total 2,71,94,69,239 11.3. We also refer to the details of opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock during the year, placed on record by the assessee: SI No Name of the Script Opening Balance Purchases Sales Closing Balance Amount Amount Amount Amount I Bellona Supply Pvt. Ld. 1,24,57,344 0 1,24,57,344 0 2 P N Jewelers Pvt ltd 38,45,323 0 38,45,323 0 3 Rozela Tie Up pvt. Ltd. 3,64,33,053 0 3,64,33,053 0 4 Rashmi Cement Ltd. 0 1,57,32,000 0 1,57,32.00 0 5 Cimmco Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 13,32,04,353 53,71,44,701 0 67,03,49,0 54 6 Festive Vincom Pvt Ltd 28,01,625 0 0 28,01,625 7 GreenHillDealmark Pvt Ltd 26,14,850 0 0 26,14,850 8 SwabhimanCommosales Pvt Ltd 26,15,900 0 0 26,15,900 9 Topline Business Pvt Ltd 41,00,205 0 0 41,00,205 10 VidyaBuildcon Pvt Ltd 0 2,50,00,000 2,50,00,000 0 11 BadrinathMinning Pvt Ltd 59,36,974 75,250 60,12,224 0 12 Sankul Retailers Private Ltd 0 74,49,572 74,49,572 0 13 Alok Financial Services Pvt Ltd 0 8,10,000 8,10,000 0 14 Asankul Cosmetics Pvt Ltd 0 6,55,26,090 6,55,26,090 0 15 Daffodil Plaza Pvt Ltd 0 88,198 88,198 0 16 NAT Communication & Marketing Pvt Ltd 0 1,26,37,632 1,26,37,632 0 17 Alok Pattanayak 0 3,00,000 3,00,000 0 Total 20,40,10,245 66,47,63,507 17,05,60,00 0 69,82,13,6 34 11.4. Based on the analysis of the above details, it is evident that entire sales ismadefrom purchases & opening stock as under: Breakup of Sale of Shares Amount(Rs.) Breakup of Sale of Shares Amount(Rs.) Sold out of Opening Investment 5,86,73,194 Sold out of Opening Investment 5,86,73,194 Sold out of Investment Purchased During the Year 11,18,86,806 Sold out of Investment Purchased During the Year 11,18,86,806 Total 17,05,60,000 Total 17,05,60,000 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 11.5. It is also important to note that the AO has made enquiries from the buyers ofthe shares sold by the assessee by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act who haveresponded and furnished the required details. Summary Statement of the replies madein response to notice u/s 131 by various buyers (Sale of Shares) is tabulated below: 12. Further, according to the ld. Counsel, the only piece of evidence that is there in this case is the statement of Sri Sanjib Patwari who is one of the owners of the Rashmi group and Sri K K Verma is the accountant, recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which have been relied upon by the Assessing Officer. These statements have been retracted the very next day by furnishing affidavits. Subsequent to retraction, no further cross- examination was conducted of these persons. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that even otherwise the addition made by the Assessing Officer was far more than the alleged disclosure made by Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 these persons in their retracted statements and hence, no cognizance in fact can be taken for the purpose of the addition. 12.1. We find force in the above contentions of the ld. Counsel in the facts and circumstances of the case. As laid down by the various Higher Courts of the country, the retracted statement can not be made sole basis for making the additions. The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. [2023]148 taxmann.com 313(Calcutta) has held that where assessing officer solely based on statement of assessee’s director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee company as undisclosed income and made additions u/s 68 of the Act, since said statement was retracted and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence or investigation brought on record by AO, impugned additions were liable to be deleted. Even the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of “Naresh Kumar Agarwal” (2015) 53 taxmann.com 306 (Andhra Pradesh) has observed that where, in the absence of any incriminating material etc. found from the premises of the assessee during the course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Similar view has been adopted by the Jaipur bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Shree Chand Soni vs. DCIT” (2006) 101 TTJ 1028 (Jodhpur). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal” in ITA No.8/2004 vide order dated 10.03.16 has observed that a statement made under section 132(4) ofthe Act on a stand-alone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operation, would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. In the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Agarwal” (2015) 64 taxman.com 107 (Delhi-HC), the assessee therein, during the course of search, made a categorical admission under section 132(4) that the cash amount seized belonged to him and it represented undisclosed income not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee did not immediately retract from the above admission but only during the assessment proceedings at a belated stage. In his retraction, the assessee stated that the surrender was made under a mistaken belief and without looking into books of account and without understanding law and that he had been compelled and perturbed by events of search and that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances of the case, while dismissing the appeal of the revenue, observed that though the fact that the assessee may have retracted his statement belatedly, yet, it did not relieve the AO from examining the explanation offered by the assessee with reference to the books of account produced before him. Although, a statement under section 132(4) of the Act carries much greater weight than the statement made under section 133A of the Act, but a retracted statement even under section 132(4) of the Act would require some Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “BasantBansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that no incriminating material was found during the search action. The stand of the department was that the admission was voluntary and was not under a mistaken belief of fact or law and that the assistance had enough time to go through the facts of their case, law applicable in their case and take advice from their counsels and advisors before filing the letter of surrender of undisclosed/unaccounted income and that the admission by them was final and binding on them; The co-ordinate Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, after overall appreciation of the fact and evidences before it, observed that the assessee’s surrender was not based on any incriminating material and that the discloser being not voluntary and extracted by the department in creating a coercive situation cannot be relied solely to be basis of addition as undisclosed income. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal while relying upon various case laws of the higher authorities observed that it is well settled legal position that merely on the basis of a statement which is not supported by the department with cogent corroborative material cannot be a valid basis for sustaining such ad-hoc addition. The co-ordinate Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal (supra) further observed that the issue of existence of pressure, threat, coercion during search proceedings is to be judged by reference to the existing facts and circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of possibilities. During the search proceedings, record relating thereto being in exclusive custody of the searching officers, it is their wish and will which prevails during the fateful period. That it is almost impossible for theassessee to adduce demonstrative evidence of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders” (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter. 12.3. The case of the assessee, before us, is on better footing as in this case, there is no delay in retraction of the statement which was done on the very next day by filing affidavits before the Metropolitan Magistrate 12.4. Even the CBDT Letter No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated Oct 3, 2003 in this respect read as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 “To The Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, (Cadre Contra) & All Directors General of Income Tax Inv. Sir, Subject: Confession of additional Income during the course of search & seizure and survey operation – regarding Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessees while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, on confessions during the course of search & seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Departments. Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search it seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders. Yours faithfully, 12.5. A perusal of the above circular also shows that it is in the notice of the statutory controlling body of the Income Tax Authorities that the revenue officials are used to take confessional statements from the person searched under force, pressure or threat and that is why they have made it mandatory that additions solely on the basis on such statements should not be made and that corroborative evidences should be collected or obtained before making such additions. The circular of the CBDT is binding on the revenue officials. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when seen in the light of above case laws and CBDT circular, additions in this case cannot be said to be justifiably made. 13. All the above details when kept in juxtaposition, there remains nothing to cast an iota of doubt on the sale transaction of shares held by the assessee as investments which it undertook in the ordinary course of its business, more importantly, purchases having made in the current year also. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, both opening balance of investment in shares and the purchases made during the year have not been disputed or doubted by the authorities below so as to bring the entire sale consideration to tax. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 14. At this stage, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has claimed that it has undertaken this sale transaction by selling the shares at the cost at which it had acquired them in AY 2006-07. At the same time, assessee submits that it has undertaken this transaction in the ordinary course of its business. The ld. DR has submitted that the conduct of business is always with a profit motive, more particularly when the assessee had held these shares for past several years and had also made purchases during the year, deploying its funds. There ought to be certain element of profit embedded in the sale transaction executed which must be brought to tax. 15. Considering the above submission of the ld. DR and taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element @ 5% of the sale consideration i.e. 5% of Rs.17,05,60,000/- which comes to Rs.85,28,000/- be subjected to tax. We, accordingly delete the addition to the extent of Rs.16,20,32,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act and sustain the balance of Rs.85,28,000/- towards profit element on the impugned sale transaction of shares undertaken by the assessee. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9.4. It is clear from the above that the facts in the instant case before us are materially same vis a vis the facts in the case decided by the coordinate bench supra in group concern. We, therefore, respectfully following the same set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to apply profit of 5% on the sales proceeds of Rs. 99,72,36,896/- whichcomes to Rs. 4,98,61,845/- and delete the remaining addition of Rs. 94,73,75,051/-. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 9. We have also perused decision by the Hon'ble High Court in ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 vide order dated 16th April, 2025, in the case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited(supra) affirmed the order of the tribunal. 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 ld. Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble High Court while deciding the issue held as under: - 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 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 14 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 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. 10. 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 decisions upheld the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 11. So far as the Cross Objection is concerned, we note that the assessee has challenged the direction of the ld. CIT (A) to the ld. AO to make an addition at the rate of 5% of the total sales consideration towards the net profit embedded in the sales consideration. 12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has not given any basis for such direction to the ld. Assessing Officer. In other words, the ld. CIT (A) has just acted on the presumptions and surmises and thus, presumed that the assessee might have made some profits from sale by investments. In our opinion, the said direction by the ld. CIT (A) is without any substantive basis and therefore cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) to the extent of this direction of making addition @ 5%. Accordingly, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed.” 08. We note that in the decision as extracted above, we find that in para 9 the coordinate bench has dealt with and followed the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited, in ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 order dated 16th April, 2025. Since, the facts of the case before us vis-à-vis, the decisions as cited and discussed above are substantially similar, therefore, we , Printed from counselvise.com Page | 15 ITA No.726/KOL/2025 Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 respectfully, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions ,set aside the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. 09. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 16.09.2025 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 "