2023 (7) TMI 393 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - accommodation entry receipts - Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - HELD THAT - As during appellate proceedings, no further details have been filed by appellant company, despite allowing opportunity of being heard in that regard, so as to justify its claim that no additions needed to be made in appellant's present case No material/evidence was ever produced by the Appellant, neither is available on record to substantiate the grounds raised in this appeal by the Appellant and to controvert the findings of the ld. Authorities below to the effects that the Appellant failed to discharge its onus to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the party from whom the amount was received. The Appellant could also not establish the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the onus cast upon the Appellant to fulfil the conditions of section 69 of the Act, does not stand discharged. Consequently, the findings recorded by Commissioner in the impugned order, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be affirmed. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11.
- Ex-parte decision due to non-appearance of the Appellant despite multiple notices.
- Addition of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/- respectively u/s. 68 of the Act on account of accommodation entry and commission.

The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11. The Appellant neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application despite multiple notices, leading to the decision to proceed ex-parte. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/- under section 68 of the Act concerning accommodation entry and commission, based on information received regarding the Appellant's association with a beneficiary of accommodation entry provider Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and group companies.

The Appellant challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal as ex-parte but considered the merits. The Commissioner upheld the additions of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/-, stating that the Appellant failed to provide necessary details to justify the claim and did not fulfill the conditions of section 69 of the Act. Despite being given opportunities, the Appellant did not produce any material or evidence to support their case, leading to the affirmation of the impugned order.

The Appellant's failure to appear or provide evidence resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The authorities found that the Appellant did not discharge the onus to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the party involved in the transactions, nor did they prove the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the decision to uphold the additions made by the Assessing Officer was deemed appropriate, and the impugned order was affirmed.