Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... vs Amodini Enclave Private Ltd, Kolkata on 15 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " A" BENCH, KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
AND
SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
ITA No.2474/KOL/2025
( Assessment Year: 2018-19)
Dy. Commissioner of Income
Amodini Enclave Private
Tax,
Limited
Aaykar Bhawan, P -7,
Chowringhee Square, 8 t h Floor, Vs. 4, Fairlie Place, Kolkata -700001,
West Bengal
Kolkata-700069, West Bengal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN No. AAACH6532K
Assessee by : Ms. Sonam Bajoria, AR
Revenue by : Shri Manas Mondal, DR
Date of hearing: 26.03.2026
Date of pronouncement: 15.04.2026
ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] dated 10.09.2025 for the AY 2018-19.
2. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹1,51,63,281/- as made by the ld. AO on account of purchase transactions by ignoring the fact that these purchases of shares were found to be bogus and were added by the ld. Assessing Officer.
3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.10.2018, declaring total loss of ₹4,17,57,659/-. Thereafter, the Page | 2 ITA No. 2474/KOL/2025 Amodini Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 case of the assessee was reopened after the ld. AO received information that the assessee has taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus trading loss in the two scripts namely Still Exchange Limited of ₹91,88,480/- and Monotype India Limited of ₹96,39,000/- and thus, the income has escaped assessment. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 06.04.2022, after passing the order u/s 148 A(d) of the Act, as the assessee did not reply to the show cause notice issued u/s 149A(b) of the Act dated 12.03.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed the return of income on 13.04.2022, declaring the same loss as declared in the original return of income. The assessee furnished before us all the details/ documents as called for. The ld. AO on the basis of information furnished by the assessee treated the purchases as well as the sales of shares in Still Exchange Limited and Monotype India Limited as bogus and added the purchase value as well as sale value of both the scrips thereby making an addition of ₹3,42,26,560/.
4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the submission and argument of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-
Date of Notice Date of Hearing fixed as per the Notice Result 18/07/2025 On or before 04.08.2025 No details furnished nor any petition for adjournment was received.
06.08.2025 On or before 14.08.2025 No details furnished nor any petition for adjournment was received.
18.08.2025 On or before 28.08.2025 No details furnished nor any petition for adjournment was received.
The conduct of the Appellant, as inferred from the aforesaid table, evidences. that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the Appeal.
5.1. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known latin dictum, "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON Page | 3 ITA No. 2474/KOL/2025 Amodini Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT". The conduct of the Appellant, as inferred from the aforesaid table, evidences that the Appellant fails on this principle of equity. Even the Hon'ble Courts, in various pronouncements, have frowned upon the Appellants who file appeals but thereafter do not take any further interest in prosecuting those appeals.
1. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jhawar Kolkata vs. DCITCCXXI (15 March, 2016) (ITA Nos. 450/Kol/2013 for Asstt. Year 2006-07) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant for non-prosecution.
1. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) held as under:
"If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference."
1. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT [(2008) 296 ITR 495] returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee.
1 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. In the judgment, their Lordships averred as follows:
....... This turns on the meaning of the words "preferred an appeal". "Preferred" is a word of dual import. Its semantics depend on the scheme and the context; its import must help, not hamper, the object of the enactment even if liberty with language may be necessary. There is good ground to think that an appeal means an effective appeal. An appeal withdrawn is an appeal non-est as judicial thinking suggests. Black's Law Dictionary gives the following meaning: 'PREFER:
To bring before; to prosecute; to try to proceed with'. Thus, preferring an indictment signifies prosecuting or trying an indictment. It means to give advantage, priority, or privilege; to select for first payment, as to prefer one creditor over others. Thus, it may mean 'prosecute' or 'effectively pursue a proceeding or merely institute it. Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it...........
In view of the above, it is clear that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, the additions/disallowance as challenged in the Grounds of Appeal and elaborate statement of facts as available in the appeal memo is also considered on merit. In support of that no material or evidence in support of it's contention has been provided by the appellant in the course of the appellate proceedings. The appellant did not controvert the finding of the AO with material he can rely upon. However, while considering the case for disposal on merit it has been observed that the AO in the concluding part of his assessment order, while determining the quantum of addition, has recorded as under, Page | 4 ITA No. 2474/KOL/2025 Amodini Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 "During the year the assessee has purchased 1,17,200 shares of the scrip Steel Exchange India Limited for a consideration of Rs.82,51,265/-and sold 1,17,200 shares for a value of Rs.91,87,308/-, whereby the total buy and sell trade value amounted to Rs.1,74,38,573/-, Similarly, in the scrip of Monotype India Limited, the assessee purchased 4,73,500 shares of for a consideration of Rs.69,12,016/- and sold 6,88,500 shares for a value of Rs.96,32,115/-, whereby the total buy and sell trade value amounted to Rs.1,65,44,131/-. Therefore, the total buy and sell trade value amounting to Rs.3,39,82,704/- (1,74,38,573 + 1,65,44,131) on trading with the penny scrips for claiming bogus business Loss/Gain is treated as unexplained credits u/s 68 and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act."
On perusal of this part of the assessment order it appears that the AO has not appreciated the facts of the case correctly. In determining income, transactions which have been regarded as ingenuine/bogus and for which section 68 has been invoked for being unexplained credit, I am of the opinion that the addition should be restricted to credit entries only. For accommodation entries shown as purchase of share of SEIL and MIL the appellant, as per the principles of accounting could not have recorded any credit entry in the books of accounts. Puchase values of purchase related transactions are always debited in the books of accounts. Hence, purchase transaction made by the appellant could not be credit entries in the books of accounts. The AO in the assessment order has also not brought on record or established the fact that the transactions related to purchase value of shares of SEIL and MIL has been credited and recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee as credit entries during the year. Having regard to the facts of the case I am of the considered view that it would be fair and proper in the interest of justice to restrict the quantum of addition to sale consideration of the disputed transactions of shares or sale value recorded for shares of M/s SEIL and MIL only. To my understanding. following the basic principles of double entry system of accounting, the appellant must have entered the transactions relating to sale consideration of the noted two disputed scrips as credit entries in the books maintained by it. Dispute in this case is related to addition being made u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained credit entries: only, it is related to sale value recorded by the appellant in the year under consideration on account of sale of shares of those two scrips. Keeping in mind all the discussions made by the AO in the assessment order and submission made by the appellant in the statement of facts, the AO is directed restrict the quantum of addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained credit to Rs.1,88,19,423/- oг (91,87,308 + 96,32,115) only and apply tax rates applicable as per law. Thus, appeal is allowed in terms of observation made above."
5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) restricted the addition to the extent of credit entries only i.e. the sale consideration received by the assessee in respect of the shares of Still Exchange Limited and Monotype India Limited. The ld. CIT (A) recorded a find that the ld. AO in the assessment order has not brought any Page | 5 ITA No. 2474/KOL/2025 Amodini Enclave Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 evidences on record that transactions related to purchase value of shares of Still Exchange Limited and Monotype India Limited were bogus even in the ex-parte proceedings before the ld. CIT (A). After taking into account of these evidences and the rival contentions we are of the view that the ld. CIT (A) has passed a very reasoned order as the addition can not be made in respect of purchase value as well as sale consideration of both the scrips. In our opinion at the most the addition can be made in respect of the gain or loss which are stated to be bogus but since the assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT (A) before us, therefore we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )
Kolkata, Dated: 15.04.2026
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT,
5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
True Copy//
Asst. Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata