9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue of notices, belief entertained by the assessee is of a reasonable person and therefore, reopening is upheld. No infirmity is found in the order of the learned CIT A in confirming the same. Therefore, ground numbers 1 4 of the appeal are dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - The companies are registered in Mumbai, but their bank accounts were operated from Lucknow. This coincidence is further corroborated from the fact that now the assessee in form number 36 has given its address which is also at Sahara India point. The company does not have any net worth but amount advanced to Sahara group. Therefore, it is a clear ploy to transfer the money to Sahara group through this shell companies. The information mentioned in the email column of form number 36 is also irrelevant. Form number 36 is also not verified by the managing director of the company. The form number 35 is signed by one person and form number 36 is signed by different person but there is no certification that any of them is the director of the company or managing director of the company authorised to sign return of income u/s 140 of the act. Even the interest of the assessee is also very clear that it wants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on Ex-parte order confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the address of the appellant company had changed and no correspondence of the Income Tax Department was received on changed address and therefore there was no deliberate default on the part of the appellant. 3. That without prejudice the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer by holding that Ex-Parte order u/s 144 has been rightly passed by him. 4. That without prejudice there was no reason to believe that Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment with the Assessing Officer and therefore the very reopening of the case of Assessment Year 2011-12 u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. 5. That without prejudice in any view of the matter the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer in respect of share premium amounting to Rs. 182,25,50,440/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while at the same time holding that share application money as explained. 6. That in any view of the matters the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT A who confirmed reopening of the assessment as well as the addition made by the learned assessing officer on merits of the case. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 05. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is the fate in earlier point of time also. This appeal is filed by the assessee on 07/02/2020. Subsequently on seven occasions, notices were issued but neither adjournment was sought nor any representation was made. The notices were issued to the assessee by registered AD at the address mentioned in form number 36 i.e. CTS-40 44, Sahara India point, SV Road, Goregaon, Mumbai 400104. There is a change in the address from the appeal before the learned CIT A and the time the appeal was filed before us. We also note that assessee has filed return of income, but notices u/s 148, and 142 (1) of the act, show cause notices were not at all responded. Further, the learned CIT A also issued 4 notices which was served on the assessee as per paragraph number 4.1 of his order, none appeared before him. Same are the fate of notices sent by us. Therefore, the conduct of the assessee shows that it wants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proper opportunity. We find that the learned assessing officer did not have any information about the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction of issue of share capital of ₹ 1,822,550,440/ . In absence of any information before the learned assessing officer, he is duty-bound to make the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. As assessee has failed to discharge its initial onus, there is no infirmity in order of learned AO in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,822,550,440/ . Even before the learned CIT A there is no evidence placed before him to deviate from the order of the learned AO. With respect to the opportunities granted to the assessee to represent the case before the learned CIT A, 4 opportunities were given by service of notice, which was served on the assessee. Further, the personal information was given in form number 35 wherein an email was mentioned, the learned CIT A also sent an email of notice of hearing on that id, despite that there is no response from the assessee. Similarly before us, several notices issued, which were not responded to, therefore, we do not have any material to deviate from the orders of the lower authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
