9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw as per section 68 of the Act as no evidence has been submitted regarding the identity, creditworthiness etc. of the shareholders or the genuineness payment to Image Dresses Private Limited. The assessee has not produced any evidence except computer generated ledger account in support of it's contention. No bank details, documents evidencing the identity and the creditworthiness of the share holders, identity of Image Dresses Private Limited etc have been submitted either during the course of appellate or assessment proceedings. Therefore as rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not been able to submit any evidence in support of his contention that the addition made by the AO was incorrect. In view of the same the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53C as satisfaction note of DCIT Central Circle Noida dated 10.10.2017 was received. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not adjudicating ground of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) without any material on record. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 22.09.2015 declaring loss of ₹ 9,305/-. Assessee s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was completed by the AO on 31.12.2017 determining assessment income at ₹ 10,90,695/- by making disallowance of ₹ 11,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. Against the assessment order, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on my part. He relied upon various case laws and filed the same in the form of Written Submissions. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the revenue authorities especially the Paper Book filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee alongwith the Written Submissions of Ld. DR. I note that in this case the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) conducted investigation into the affairs of various companies controlled by Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain and Sh. Virender Kumar Jain. On the basis of such investigations the SFIO filed complaint under section 120B, 420, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see appeared at serial No. 18 which showed share capital of ₹ 1 lakh and loan of ₹ 10,87,365. I further find that AO observed that the assessee company is just paper company engaged in providing of accommodation entry. There is lying unsecured loan given of ₹ 10 lac on which company not earning any interest because P L account of its almost blank except debiting other expense of ₹ 9305/-. In the previous year there was no business and as on 31.3.2014 just shown other income of ₹ 640/- as against NIL this year. Therefore, AO held that the share capital of ₹ 1 lac and long term and advances given of ₹ 10 lac as not genuine as assessee could not file any supporting documents as evidence in support of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) that the assessee has not been able to submit any evidence in support of his contention that the addition made by the AO was incorrect. In view of the same the contention of the assessee was not accepted. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above and the orders passed by the revenue authorities, in my considered view, the addition was rightly made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference. Therefore, I uphold the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 06-11-2019. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
