9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer. 2. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. We also notice that even before the ld. CIT (Aappeals) in spite of issue of several notices by the ld. CIT (Appeals) none attended for hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on hearing the ld. DR. 3. The ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer made addition under Section 68 of the Act in respect of share application money/un-secured loans received by the assessee from various entities observing that the assessee did not prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors and identity and source of share application money was not established. The ld. DR submits that the assessee failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company) 4.6.5 In the circumstances of the case, the following facts which speaks for themselves and are vital: i) The assessee has received huge amount of fund from outside parties. ii) Such persons giving credit did not receive any dividend or interest of whatsoever nature from the assessee while the money remained at the later's disposal. iii) Despite repeated opportunities, the persons could not be produced by the assessee who cannot be presumed to have no information and knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the investing persons. Moreover as per assessee the two of the investor companies have same building address, in which the address of assesee company. iv) The information received u/s 133(6) from 3 ompanies cannot be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were not sufficient the A.R. of the assessee vide note sheet entry dated 19.12.2018 was asked to file confirmation along with bank account statement, ITR and audit report including all annexure. AR of the assessee vide submission dated 26.12.2018 filed the confirmed copy in respect of M/s Propitious Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sampark Associates Pvt. Ltd. As discussed in Para 5.1 above. Here it is also to be noted that Signature of Mr. Gopal (Authorised Signatory) in 2 confirmations, one submitted on 19.12.2018 and another on 26.12.2018 (copy scanned above) appears to have been signed by two different persons which further substantiate -he case of the revenue. This is to mislead the department. 5.3 In view of the above discussion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and short term borrowings/unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act . As per the detailed discussions made by the AO in his order at para 4 and 5, the appellant failed to establish the genuineness of loan creditors remains unverified therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs.34,60,60,557/-. Before me also, during appellate proceedings, neither any authorized person has attended nor any further details have been filed by appellant company, despite allowing opportunity of being heard in that regard, so as to justify its claim that no additions needed to be made in appellant's present case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no reason to interfere with the findings of the AO and provide any further relief to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
