TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is directed against the order dated 16th September 2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 726/Kol/2025 for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The Appellant/Revenue challenges the deletion of an addition of Rs.9,32,00,000 made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds received by the respondent on the sale of unlisted equity shares. The Revenue contends that the purchaser entities were shell or paper companies, that the transactions were accommodation entries, and that the Tribunal failed to apply the test of human probabilities and the principles stated in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Swati Bajaj, reported in [2022] 446 ITR 56. 3. The substantial questions of law proposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court, while examining the genuineness of the impugned share sale transaction. vi. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Pr. CIT vs Swati Bajaj reported in (2022) 446 ITR 56 wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta laid down guidelines on the manner in which the allegation against the assessee has to be considered. vii. That the case falls under the exceptional clause as per para 3.1(h) of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024 since it is a case, consisting of addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit due to organized tax evasion through accommodation entry. Hence despite low....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mere formulation of questions in the memorandum cannot convert factual grounds into substantial questions of law. 6. The Tribunal recorded that the investments had been acquired in earlier years and that the relevant investment transactions had been disclosed in the books of account. It further recorded that the respondent had furnished purchase and sale bills, investment statements, bank statements, confirmations, income-tax returns, addresses, audited financial statements and other particulars concerning the purchasers. The Tribunal also noted that notices issued to the purchasers under Section 133(6) had been responded to and that the material placed by the respondent was not displaced by any independent and substantive evidence prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, whether the purchasers' responses were reliable and whether the surrounding circumstances warranted an inference of accommodation entry are essentially questions of fact. 10. The Appellant/Revenue has not demonstrated that the Tribunal applied an incorrect legal test. Nor has it identified any material evidence which the Tribunal failed to consider. The submission that the purchasers were shell or paper companies, without pointing to independent material establishing that the particular sale proceeds received by the respondent represented the respondent's own undisclosed money, seeks a reappraisal of the factual record. That exercise is outside the limited jurisdiction under Section 260A. ....