9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he quashed and it is prayed to Your honor that they please be quashed and / or any other relief just deem fit and proper please be directed. Appellant pray accordingly." [B] Vide Assessment Order dated 31.03.2014 passed under Section 143(3) / 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2014 is reproduced as under:- The assessee has filed its return of income on 19.11.2006 declaring income of Rs. 52,59,189/-. Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) on 27.10.2008 at income of Rs. 66,17,980/- which was further revised at Rs. 66,23,048/- vide order o/s 154 passed on 27.10.2011. Later on, on the basis of information received from Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, New Delhi, notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.03.2013 to the assessee after recording reasons as reproduced below:- "REASONS FOR rssUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 M/s Ramdev Rice Pvt. Ltd. Vill. Daha, A.Y. 2006-07 Return in this case was filed on 21.11.2006 declaring income of Rs. 52,59,189/- and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 27.10.2008 at income of Rs. 66,17,980/- Now, an information has been received from the office of Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 and that you have no association or transaction with Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain Group case. 2. You have contended that share capital under consideration has already been disclosed in the return and that action has been initiated upon suspicion and there is no material with the Department for formation of the necessary belief. As per proviso (i) to Sec147, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of fur years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Explanation (I) to section 147 reads as under:- "Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to the concluded assessment which goes to expose the falsity of the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment is different from drawing afresh inference from the same facts and material which was available with the ITO at the time of original assessment proceedings. The two situations are distinct and different. Thus, where the transaction itself on the basis Of subsequent information, is found to be a bogus transaction, the mere disclosure of that transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings, cannot be said to be a disclosure of the 'true ' and full facts in the case and the ITO would have the jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment in such a case. It is correct that the assessing authority could have deferred tie completion of the original assessment proceedings for further enquiry and investigation into the genuineness to the loan transaction but his failure to do so and complete the original assessment proceedings would, not take away his jurisdiction to act inder section 147, on receipt of the information subsequently. In the instant case, the subsequent information on the basis of which the ITO acquired reasons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The argument that the question regarding truthfulness or falsehood of the transactions reflected in the return can only be examined during the original assessment proceedings and not at any stage subsequent thereto is not acceptable. The argument is too broad and general in nature and does violence to the plain phraseology of section 147(a) and 148 and is against the settled law. One has to took to the purpose and intent of the provisions. One of the purposes of section 147 appears to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing'. It would, be traversty of Justice to allow the assessee that latitude. " Twin conditions set out by the apex Court as above are met in your case. In the case of AGR Investments Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & others (Del.) 303 ITR 146 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:- "The word 'reason' in the phrase 'reason 10 believe' would mean cause or justification. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar manner in the original assessment and was sough! to be done in a different manner in the proceeding under section 147. The reason to believe had been appropriately understood by the Assessing Officer and there was material on the basis of which the notice was issued. The Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 Of the Constitution of India pertaining to sufficiency of reasons for formation Of the belief, cannot interfere. The same is not to be judged at that stage. [Para 22] In the instant case, the assessee was desirous of on adjudication by the writ Court with regard to the merits o the controversy. In fact, it required the Court to adjudge the sufficiency Of the material a to make a roving enquiry that the initiation of proceedings under sections 147 and 148 was not tenable. The same does not come within the ambit and sweep of exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was open to the assessee to participate in the reassessment proceedings and to put forth its stand and stance in details to satisfy the Assessing Officer that there was no escapement of taxable income. [Para 23] Consequently, the writ petition was liable to be dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herewith for compliance. Sd/- (Himanshu Roy) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Karnal. 3. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and hearing took place on various dates. Information called for from time to time was furnished. Vide letter dated 27.03.2014, assessee was asked to show cause why not Rs. 90 Lacs be added to the returned income u/s 68 as cash credit in the A. Y. 2006-07 as the explanation offered about the genuineness is not. satisfactory in the opinion of AO because of reasons discussed in this show cause as reproduced below:- "No. ACIT/KNL/2013-14/ Office of the Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle, Karnal Dated: 27.03.2014 To M/S Ram Dev Rice Pvt- Ltd., V & PO Daha, Distr. Karnal D/Sirs, Sub:- Show cause notice for completing assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. for the A. Y. 2006-07 - Regarding- *** Please refer to the above. 2. In this connection and in continuation to earlier correspondence in this regard, it is stated that various seized documents which were seized from S.K. Jain Group, accommodation entry provider in Delhi which has a bearing with your case form part of the enclosure attached with this show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen that all these capital introduces companies in the assessee company for A. Y. 2006-07 as mentioned earlier in the show cause letter have huge shareholder fund in the form of share capital and/or share premium and very less returned income including nil figure. A prudent business concern would have used its fund judiciously to earn more income out of capital. The subscriber companies in, this context are not doing justice to their shareholders by not earning enough income by not investing wisely. Such correlation of huge shareholder fund with low returned income is the characteristic of entry operator companies, where huge shareholder fund in the form of share capital and share premium is built through routing of money to fund the beneficiary company with capital and share premium. It is this design which serves as conduit for accommodation entry'. Also, upon perusal of MCA data of one of the subscri4er company to the assessee company one of the director Sh. Kumar Sharma as on 27.03.2014 is director in 11 companies. The investor companies and Sh. Surendra Jain and Virendra Jain were issued summons. But they did not attend the hearing- What is apparent may not be rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is show caused to explain why the share capital and share premium received by assessee during the year under review should not be charged to Tax u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard without prejudice to our earlier submissions filed before Your Honor during the Assessment Proceeding we on behalf of above named assessee respectfully wish to submit as follows:- 01. During the year under review the assessee received share capital and Share Premium of Rs. 9000000/- from corporate assessee through proper Banking channel. The amount received through proper banking channel is not in doubt as per show cause notice. The genuineness of transaction is proved, as receipt of share capital is through proper banking channel. 02. To further substantiate the transactions, we would like to prove the identity of shareholders and creditworthiness of shareholders, the assessee has submitted the following documentary evidences. (The same is submitted with this reply also). a) Share application form received from shareholders. b) Allotment letter issued by appellant along with share certificate. c) Certificate of incorporation & memorandum and article of association of share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given to the Assessing officer then the Department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessment in accordance with law. Hence we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment" The Department SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above stated case, which arises from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Case of divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. Reported in 2007-158-Texmann-440(Del) wherein their lordship decided the issue in favor of Assessee. b. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 23 d December, 2011. In bunch of 11 appeals taking the lead case as ITA no. 972/2009 dated 23.122011 in the case of CIT vs. Kantdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. since Reported in 2012 - 68 - DTR - 38 Del and approved by Apex Court o India by dismissing the appeal of revenue in SLP NO. CC-15640/2012. Dated 17.09.2012 after discussing the catina of Judgment culled out the following ratio. Para 35, page. 28 "The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, it could be said that it is the assessee which has not been able to explain the source and receipt of money. According to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ories, who introduced those bank accounts and the manner in which transactions were carried out and the bank accounts operated. This kind of inquiry would have given some more material to the AO to find out as to whether the assessee can be convicted with the transactions which were allegedly bogus and or companies were also bogus and were treated for namesake. We say so with more emphasis because of the reason that normally such kind of presumption against the assessee cannot be made as per the law laid down in various Judgments noted above. Just because of the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given it would not give the Revenue a right to invoke Section 68 of the Act without any additional material to support such a move. We are reminding ourselves of the following remarks of a Division Bench of this Court in its decision dated 02.8.2010 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax - IV Vs. M/s. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (ITA No. 911 of 2010) in the following words: "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke Section 68. One must not lose sight of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout cogent evidence. One has to see the matter from the point of view of such companies (like the assessee herein) who invite the share application money from different sources or even public at large. It would be asking for a moon if such companies aye asked to find oat from each and every share applicant/subscribers to first satisfy the assessee companies about the source of their funds before investing. It is for this reason the balance is struck by catena of judgments in laying down that the Department is not remediless and is free to proceed to reopen the individual of such alleged bogus shareholders in accordance with the law. That was precisely the observation of the Supreme Court in Lovely Export (supra) which holds the fields and is binding. Para. 40 In conclusion, we are of the opinion that once adequate evidence/material is given, as stated by us above, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity o/ shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has "created" evidence, the Revenue is supposed to make thorough p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identity of shareholders, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of shareholders - No adverse inference if shareholders fail to respond to notice by Assessing officer -- Duty of Assessing Officer to investigate credit worthiness of shareholders -finding that Assessee company had proved genuineness of shareholders- Additions of part of Share Capital under section 68 -Not justified- income tax Act, 1961, s. 68. Approved by Apex Court of India in 2009 - 216 - CTR -195 (SC) CITvs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd g. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of E.P. Royapna vs. State of Tamil Nadu Reported in 1974 -AIR - 555 - SC Held that:- "The Intention of establishing mala fide is very heavy on the person who allege it the allegation of mala fide are often more easier made than proved and very seriousness of such an allegation demand proof of a high order of credibility " Other authorities on above view are:- * 1974-AIR-171-SCJay DalalPoddarvs. BibiRagra * 2007-108-ITD-639 (Hyd). 6. Another aspect of the case is that, the show cause notice is solely based on the report of Investigation wing of Income Tax Department, Delhi in the case of Sh. Surendra Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the department for formation of the necessary belief. The assessee has already requested that the Return Of Income filed on 29th November 2006 may kindly be treated as filed in compliance to the notice under section 148 of the Act. b. The relevant extracts from the Supreme Court decision in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) ltd. V. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 are reproduced herein below: "We clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons with a reasonable time, On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the Assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the above said five assessment years. c. To enable the assessee to raise the objections in a meaningful manner and to provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiation of reassessment proceedings. Since information coming to assessing officer was neither specific, nor reliable and relevant against the assessee, it would not prove that what was disclosed by the assessee in return filled earlier was not true and correct. Kindly refer- Durga Prasad Goyal v. 110 (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr.) (SB) An assessing officer has no power to review his own order. No action can be initiated merely on change of opinion as per decisions in following cases: Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 769 (Raj). Shiv Prasad Agarwal v. ITO (1996) 85 Taxman 243 (Col.) (AT). CIT v. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana (1994) 206 ITR 715 (Raj.). In this case, the assessment was originally completed u/s. 143(3) after due scrutiny. There is a presumption u/s. 114(e) of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 that all judicial and official-acts have been regularly performed. Kindly permit us to refer to a recent decision of Delhi High Court Full Bench in the case of CIT V. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 wherein they have held as under: "It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce the Directors/Principal officer of shareholder's company before any authority of law. Your Honor may please direct the assessee to produce the directors/principal officer of Share Holders Company before Your Honor for verification and examinations. The another allegation of Ld. Assessing Officer the share holders have shown the meagre income in their Income Tax Return and assessee routed its unaccounted money through share capital & share premium as well as. investment made by share holders on huge premium hence this is unaccounted money of assessee. In this regard it is submitted that allegation of Ld. Assessing Officer is baseless and imaginary. It is well settled law laid down by Apex Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Walchand & co. Pvt. Ltd Reported in 65 - ITR - 381 (SC) that commercial decision of tux payer cannot be questioned by revenue authorities. The appellant at this juncture seek to refer the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case Of CIT vs, Value Capital Services P. Ltd. Reported in 307 - ITR - 334 (Del) where in it has been held that:- "..........the additional burden on revenue. It must be shown that even if the assessee does not have means to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt" b) 2013- 354 - ITR - 296 (Del)-CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd., c) 2013 - 354 - ITR- 282 (Del), Mod Creation P. Ltd. vs. ITO d) 2013-357- ITR - 143 (Del) CIT Vs. Fair Finvest P. Ltd. e) 2013- 96 - DTR - 299 (Del) CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. f) 2013 -89 -DTR- 342 (Del) CIT vs. Nipuan Auto Pvt. Ltd g) 2013 -TIOL-516-ITAT-Del CIT Vs. CNR Leading Sofiech P. Ltd. (Note:- the cases cited at S. No. b to g are decided in favor of assessee after the decision of Nova Steel & Finance R Ltd. Reported in 2012 - 342 - ITR -169 Del) h) 2010 - 325 -ITR-25 (P & H) CIT vs. GP International Ltd. i) 299 -ITR- 268 (Del) CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance P, Ltd j) 330-ITR -603 (Del) CIT Vs. Winstroi Petro Chemical P. Ltd. k) 248 -CTR-33 (Del) CIT vs. steel and Alloys P. Ltd. Approved by Supreme Court in SLP no. 15640/2012 dated 12.09.2012 3. The appellant respectfully submit that none of the shareholders companies had ever denied the contribution made by them towards share capital and share Premium. As in formed by shareholders, their Income Tax Assessment for the Assessment year 2005-06 is completed u/s 143(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and investments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y presumption of unexplained credit can be made. These companies who are shareholder in the assessee company, being controlled by the entry operator, itself points towards the doubt towards genuineness transaction between these companies and assessee company.Following is the discussion on statement of Sh. Surendra Jain and Sh Virendra Jain. Discussion on statement of Sh. Surendra Jain:- As is evident from Q. No.25 of the statement, annexure A-I to A-163 seized by the Investigation Wing is owned up by him and his brother, that it belongs to them. (of this is Annexure A-54 and its relevant pages 12, 18 and 22 which have been written by Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain or Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain. This annexure A-54 has already been discussed in the show cause and forms part of the order.) Discussion on statement of Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain:- On page 3, to reply of Q. No. 3, Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain also owns up document. Sh. Virendra Jain has been evasive to most of the queries raised in his statement, to the contents which he has handwritten, to the print outs which have been obtained from his computer, saying that he needs more time to explain. Instructions from his statements: To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not know Sh. SK. Jain and Sh. V.K. Jaip, they know only the investor companies. 8. AR's contention is not tenable and untrue. Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain is the director of M/S KDG Properties & Construction Pvt. Ltd. For the remainihg 3 investor companies neither Sh. S.R.' Jain or Sh. V.K. Jain is the director. In M/s Vogue Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. Sh. Shish Ram Bharara and Sh. Anil Kumar Bansal are directors. It is implausible that even bank operation documents such as pay order or specimen signature verification application document will be left by investor concerns i.e. Karishma Industries Ltd., Vogue Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. and Worldlink Telecom Ltd. with the financial advisors i.e. Sh. S.K. Jain and Sh. V.K. Jain, as claimed by the counsel of the assessee. Thus, the claim that Karishma Industries Ltd., Vogue Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. and Worldlink Telecom Ltd. are entities not controlled by S.K. Jain Group is not found tenable. No company will leave this kind of documents with their financial advisors. Furthermore, Sh. S.K. Jain and Sh. V.K. Jain were established entry operators. Documents related to concerns found from the premises of Sh. S.K. Jain and Sh. V.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no further burden lies on him to show the source. In Yadu Hari Dalmia vs. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 48, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has observed:- "It is well known that the whole catena of sections starting from s. 68 have been introduced into the taxing enactments step by step in order to plug loopholes and in order to place certain situations beyond doubt even though there were judicial decisions covering some of the aspects. For example, even long prior to the introduction of s. 68 in the statute book, courts had held that where any amounts were found credited in the books of the assessee in the previous year and the assessee offered no explanation about the nature and soufce thereof or the explanation offered was, in the opinion of the ITO, not satisfactory, the sums so credited could be charged to income-tax as income o/ the assessee of a relevant previous year. Section 68 was inserted in the I.T. Act. Only to provide statutory recognition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions." 11. The above discussed issue has also been supported by a recent judgement of Delhi High Court i.e. in the case of CIT vs. Independent Media (P) Ltd., 210 Taxmann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... = Rs. 90 OO 000/- Total taxable Income = Rs. 1,56,23,048/- Rounded off = Rs. 1,56,23,050/- Assessed at income of Rs. 1,56,23,050/- Charge interest u/s 234B & 234C of the I.T. Act. Issue penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act. Issue requisite documents. Sd/- (Himanshu Roy) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Karnal Copy to the Assessee [C] The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 17.11.2016, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 3.1 On going through the assessment order, the main observations of the AO on this issue can be summarized as follows:- a) The AO has observed that specific information has been received from the O/o DIT(Inv..), New Delhi that the assessee's company had obtained accommodation entries of Rs. 90 Lacs relating to the A. Y. 2006-07 in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Sh. Surrender Kumar Jain Group (entry operator) where search/survey operation have been conducted on 14.09.2010. b) The AO has also observed that copy of reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our years. The AR has submitted that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as there was no material to show that the assessee had failed to disclose all material facts necessary for Assessment. 3.3 Findings:- After going through the facts and submissions, it is observed that the AO has followed the due procedure of law and also had specific information in his possession, received from the DIT(Inv.) which indicated that certain amounts had been received in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain who were entry operators. The AO has elaborately discussed in the assessment order as to how the amounts received in the form of share capital/share premium etc, had not been properly examined at the time of earlier assessment and also how this information was fresh information and specific in nature, which clearly indicated that there was omission/failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The AO has also relied upon various judicial pronouncements stated in the assessment order to highlight such omission or failure to disclosed fully and truly all material facts what cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only one address where several other paper entities were being run by Sh. S. K. Jain Group. c) The AO has also highlighted that on analysis of these paper concerns, it was observed that there was huge share holder funds 'in the form of share capital and share premium and very less returned income. These specific characteristics were typical of accommodation entries providers. d) The AO has algo highlighted that there was no justification for the share premium paid by the assessee relating to these concerns, since there was not enough profit or potential to justify the payment of premium made by the appellant. e) The AO has also stated that after considering the replies of the assessee and also considering the material available with the AO it was clear that seizure of various documents from the S.K. Jain Group and detailed investigation conducted by the Department, it was clear that large no. of entities were being operated and managed by S.K. Jain Group to v provide bogus entries to different parties including the assessee. f) The AO has also referred to statements of Sh. Virender Kumar Jain and Sh. Surender Jain where during the course of the Statements both the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mphasized that in the statement given by Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and Sh. Virender Jain, their contentions have mostly been evasive and there was no specific information on the basis of which the documents found during survey/search at their premises could be used for making additions in the hands of the assessee. The AR of the appellant has therefore strongly argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, there was no Justification for making this addition. 4.3 Findings:- After going through the facts and submissions as well as various judicial pronouncements, these Grounds are being finalized after making the following observations:- a) On going through the assessment order and the contentions of the AR, there is no dispute that the amount of Rs. 90 Lacs had been received by the appellant as share capital/share premium from four parties as discussed in detail in the assessment order. The AO has made addition by observing that these four parties were actually only paper companies run by Sh. S. K. Jain Group on whom search and survey operations had been conducted by the Investigation wing. Incriminati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies and Credit worthiness of the Parties as well as the genuineness of the transaction had not been discharged by the appellant, there was no justification to accept the contentions of the AR Of the appellant that the additions were not justified. Accordingly, after careful consideration of the facts of 'the present case, there is no material or submissions provided by the AR of the appellant, which calls for any interference In the decisions of the AO. Accordingly, this addition of Rs. 90 Lacs made by the AO is upheld. These Grounds are therefore dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [D] This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 17.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Surender Pal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative ("Ld. Sr. DR", for short). However, none was present from the assessee's side. In the absence of any representation from assessee's side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 31.03.2014 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.11.2016 of the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
