2023 (2) TMI 747 - AT - Income Tax

Change of name of the assessee company in Form No.36 - Defective appeal - HELD THAT - At the first sight, it is transpired from the records that the name of assessee is mentioned as Lal Mahal Ltd. in Form No.36. However, as per letter dated 07.09.2022, the company is now known as Nutrionex Manufactures Ltd. . Thus, there is change of name/entity of assessee. No step has been taken to amend/rectify the name of the assessee company in Form No.36. Under these facts, the appeal of the assessee being defective hence, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the action taken by the Assessing Officer under section 147
2. Addition made under section 69C
3. Right to add further grounds of appeal during appeal proceedings
4. Compliance with the first proviso to section 147 regarding failure to disclose all material facts
5. Validity of initiation of action under section 147 and service of notice under section 148
6. Unexplained expenses under section 69C
7. Consideration of additional grounds of appeal

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.08.2018, disputing the action taken by the Assessing Officer under section 147. The appellant contended that the AO's actions were incorrect and unjustified. The grounds of appeal included objections to the dismissal of the appeal, the validity of the addition made under section 69C, and the confirmation of such addition. The appellant also raised concerns regarding the inability to add further grounds of appeal during the proceedings and the reliance on a statement made without the opportunity for cross-examination.

2. The appellant argued that the action under section 147 was illegal and bad in law due to the failure to disclose all material facts as required by the first proviso to section 147. The appellant contended that the conditions necessary for initiating action under section 147 were not satisfied, challenging the legality of the AO's actions.

3. Another issue raised was the legality of the initiation of action under section 147 and the service of notice under section 148. The appellant asserted that there was no valid issue and valid service of notice under section 148, questioning the legality of the proceedings.

4. The appellant further contested the initiation of action under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment year mentioned in the notice and the actual assessment year for which action was intended. The appellant argued that such discrepancies rendered the actions illegal and bad in law.

5. Regarding unexplained expenses under section 69C, the appellant objected to the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the expenses, despite the purchases being recorded in the audited books of account and the stock register. The appellant argued that the purchases were legitimate and should not have been treated as unexplained expenses.

6. The appellant disputed the CIT(A)'s findings that purchases were not made from a specific company, despite the audited books of account showing no discrepancies and the acceptance of book results. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the evidence supporting the purchases.

7. Lastly, the appellant raised concerns about the consideration of additional grounds of appeal, arguing that the CIT(A) unjustly rejected the additional grounds by claiming they could not be filed at that stage. The appellant challenged this decision, seeking the consideration of the additional grounds.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of the assessee during the proceedings, leading to the disposal of the case based on written submissions and available records.