9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of the principles of natural justice, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in law and on facts on the following grounds: A.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's request for admission of additional evidence. A.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the appellant's reply to the remand report of the AO. B. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,88,115/- on account of disallowance of expenses. C. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- on account of share capital and share premium. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, add, modify, delete grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16, but the AR did not attend the proceedings on the said date. Despite the aforesaid show cause putting the assessee on notice that the proceedings shall be completed exparte in the event of non-compliance, the assessee has chosen to remain silent. Considering such continued noncompliance and the fact that the proceedings are getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2016, the AO has no option but to complete the proceedings u/s. 144 of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 6,85,115/- on account of expenses and further made the addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- on account of share capital and share premium by completing the assessment at Rs. 21,43,110/- u/s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2016. Against the said assessment order, assessee appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee justified the higher valuation of shares by submitting share valuation report and also provided the identity of the investor, which are at page4 no. 7-14 of the Paper Book. However, the AO treated the entire amount received as share capital and share premium as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act holding that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving the source and capacity of share applicants as well as genuineness of the transactions. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed both the additions without admitting the addition evidences under Rule 46A and failed to specify any of the circumstances under clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 46A(1). In view of above, he requested to set aside the orders o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute and reject the ground (A) raised by the assessee. 5.1 As regards ground (B) relating to confirming the addition of Rs. 6,85,115/- on account of disallowance of expenses is concerned, I find that details and vouchers have not been linked to verify the genuineness and quantum and the bills and vouchers are a few only. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that expenses as made by the AP appears to be reasonable and appropriate and therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,85,115/- was correctly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of dispute and reject the ground (B) raised by the assessee. 5.2 As regards ground (C) relating to confirming the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
