9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Ms. Monika Aggarwal, CA Department by : S h. J.S. Ahlawat, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi dated 18.11.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law while confirming the addition of Rs. 501000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore the addition may please be deleted. ii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law while contending that the facts of the assessee are different with that of C.I.T. vs. Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195, and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h persons , there was no attendance or filing of any submission in response to the summons issue to Shri Bharti. The Assessing Officer accordingly, added the above amount of Rs. 5,01,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 in the hands of the assessee company. 4. In the appellate proceedings, assessee filed application for additional evidences u/s. 46A of the I.T. Act enclosing therewith the copy of master details of the alleged investor company downloaded from the website of MCA. These submission were remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Assessing Officer observed that in the remand report that documents furnished by the assessee are simply those which can be accessed from public sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sult and the summons issued to the Directors was either returned unserved or not complied with. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 5,01,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are accordingly, rejected. 5. Against the above order the Assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Revenue has alleged in this case that information was received from the Investigation Wing with regard to bogus accommodation relating to receipt of Rs. 5,01,000/- by the assessee company from one M/s Viniyas Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd. However, ld. Counsel of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
