9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed. Addition u/s 68 in absence of documentary evidence filed by the assessee - We find that before the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to discharge its onus in terms of section 68 of the Act of filing documentary evidence in support of identity creditworthiness of the unsecured loan parties and genuineness of the transaction, thereafter the CIT(A) provided further opportunity and called for certain documents, however assessee failed in complying the queries raised by the CIT(A). In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition, in absence of any rebuttal filed by the assessee before us. The grounds challenging the merit of the addition are accordingly dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest amounting to Rs.4,30,04,302/- u/s. 234B 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that, despite notifying when the case was called for, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was filed. In the circumstances, we were of the opinion that assessee was not intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded before me. The appellant was entitled to a copy of reasons recorded u/s.148(2) and the onus in this case was on the appellant to prove, with reference to reasons recorded u/s.148(2) that the AO did not have any tangible material to reopen the assessment. Therefore, hold that the appellant has not been able to substantiate its contention with supporting documents. I, therefore, dismiss ground of appeal No. 2 . 5. We find that assessee did not contest its grounds before the Ld. CIT(A) seriously as the assessee even did not file a copy of the reasons recorded before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, in our opinion the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer did not have any ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of NCHPL was debited by Rs. 20 crores and also credited by Rs. 20 crores during the P.Y. 2009-10. I am unable to rule out possibility of: (a) the 4 aforementioned parties making separate entries directly debiting NCHPL for payment made to NCHPL to whom payment was made. (b) NCHPL making separate entries directly crediting the 4 aforementioned parties for the payments received. (c) NCHPL making separate entries directly debiting Jaico Textile Pvt. Ltd. and Doral Trading Pvt. Ltd. for payments made to them (d) Jaico Textile Pvt. Ltd. and Doral Trading Pvt. Ltd. making separate entries directly crediting NCHPL for the payments received. 6.4.6 The onus was on the appellant to prove that the entries mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
