9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the primary onus u/s 68. An addition appellant s claim regarding addition to share capital and incurrence of business, expenses u/s 37 at assessment stage as well as during appellate stage. Thus, the additions made by AO are upheld and accordingly appellant s grounds of appeal are dismissed We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunalno material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned ord er on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A); and dismiss this appeal of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here that the Ld' Assessing Officer misunderstood the remarks of RBI Inspector for non declaring the loans of ₹ 9.61 Crs as NPA and not making the provisions of ₹ 5.69 Crs. on the same and treating it as diversion of the fund. Even the Ld' Assessing Officer ignored their comments about declaring more profit by such provision of ₹ 5.69 Crs. The Ld' Assessing Officer also ignored the fact that if the Assessee declared the loans of ₹ 9.61 Crs as NPA than a total interest of ₹ 1.25 crs was also to be reversed in addition to making the provision of ₹ 5.69 crs and due to which the declared profit would be reduced by ₹ 1.25 Crs. The Ld' Assessing Officer has also erred by taking the above bases for disallowing the expenditure without pointing out any deficiencies in the books of account. 6. Any additional ground, if any, may be submitted with your kind permission. It is, therefore, prayed that the above additions may kindly be deleted and the appeal of the appellant assessee may be allowed on merits of the case." (B) When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 02.12.2019, there was nobody present from assessee's side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apur 08.04.2009 6. Dadri (Ex-counter) - Opp, Bhagwati Nursing Home, Railway Road, Dadri, U.P 13.12.2009 The assessee vide order sheet entry dated 06.01.2016 has been asked to produce Audit Report of RBI for F.Y. 2011-12. The date for compliance was fixed for 07.01.2015. On the given date neither anybody appeared nor any written reply, regarding Audit Report, was received in this office. However, on 08.01,2015, the AR produced a letter from RBI which was addressed to the assessee bank. The AR cited the prior approval condition of RBI in sharing the report before any Authority or Court. In order to get the Audit Report, a notice u/s 133(6) was issued to The Dy. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Lucknow, on 23,01,2015. 4. The RBI report titled "Statutory Inspection of Mahamedha Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Ghaziabad U/s 35 of Banking regulation Act, 1935rVtfith Reference to Financial Position as on March 31, 2012. Loans received on 23,02,2015". Based on the findings of the RBI report, especially regarding introduction of paid up share capital where source of the contribution was not ascertainable and regarding diversion of funds through bad loans which turned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the source of the contribution was not ascertainable. These are 1. Sunita Bhati - (₹ 45,00,000/-) 2. Anita Bhati - (₹ 35,00,000/-) 3. Raj Singh Bhati - (₹ 30,00,000/-) 4. Udai Veer Singh - (₹ 15,00,000/-) To further cloud the genuineness of these transactions, the report mentions following other facts:- i. The bank was charging 10% Share money from the borrowers as against the norm of 2.5% and 5% from the secured and unsecured borrowers respectively. ii. The bank has not prepared the share certificate of the members since Feb- 11-2007 and further 47 Share Certificate issued during Jan 2, 2002 and April 05, 2002 had not been handed over /dispatched to the members. Similarly, share certificates bearding number 5301 to 7300 were prepaid with signature of only one Director and are also yet to be developed to the respective member. From the above facts, it is clear that the transactions of receipt of Share money between 01.04.2011 and 31.03.2012 are not genuine. In this respect, you are requested to show-cause why this amount of Share money received from above mentioned four 'alleged' investers could not be added back in our in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to mention here that the RBI Inspector had any role to justify the credit worthiness of the Shareholder. The have to give the report on financial discipline of the Bank according to rules and regulation of the RBI. 2. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle - I, Ghazjabad has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of ₹ 29,50,000/- u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for addition in Share Capital made by three companies despite and ignoring the facts that the assessee submitted all the evidence to prove their credit worthiness. After providing the all the related documents the Ld' Assessing Officer didn't raise any quarry for the same. 3. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle - I, Ghazaabad bas erred in law and on facts in making the addition of ₹ 2,17,95,629/- for disallowing the expenditure u/s 37 by making the reference of RBI Inspection report, despite: and ignoring the facts that the assessee maintained its books of account properly and get audited even the Ld. Assessing Officer didn't rejected the books of account. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Ld. Assessing officer misunderstand the remarks of RBI in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at whose instance the reference is made fails to appear at the hearing, or fails In taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. (iii) In the case of CIT Vs. Multplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38ITD 320 (Del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed f or hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented neither the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the principle that on the basis of inherent power the appeal filed by the appellant can be treated as un-admitted. 6. Therefore, keeping in view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. No statement of facts has been submitted by appellant alongwith Form 35. Thus all facts given in the assessment order are treated as true and correct facts in the case of dispute. 7. On merits, perusal of facts reveal that appellant is a cooperative bar and AO after obtaining statutory inspection of appellant from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
