9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had sufficient details to explain the alleged sum, it could have certainly filed those details at any stage. Consistently escaping from appearing/producing the alleged parties before the ld. AO and the appellate authority(ld.CIT-A) indicates that the assessee has no plausible explanation to explain the source of alleged sum of share capital and security premium and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 of the Act have rightly been invoked by ld. AO and alleged sum is the unaccounted income of assessee, which has been routed in the books through bogus/accommodation entry in the form of share capital and security premium. No infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus, all the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Rs. 32510000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 without proper opportunities of examining the records. 5. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds or amend or alter any of the foregoing grounds before or at the time of the Appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business/investment in shares securities. Income at Rs. 1890/- declaring in return of income was filed on 24.09.2012 for the AY 2012-13. Later on the said return was revised on 08.09.2013 showing income at Rs. 1890/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection) followed by serving of statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) upon the assessee. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the notices returned back by postal authority with the comment Not known dt. 18.06.2016/03.09.2016 and assessee remained absent on both the dates of hearing. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) dismissing the appeal of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 32,51,00,000/-. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee had made no further efforts to file any other documentary evidence or paper book and written submissions in support of its claim. 7. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t during the year. The assessee failed to file necessary details to explain the source of alleged cash credit and also unable to prove identity, creditworthiness of the cash creditors as well as genuineness of the transaction. The assessee company has miserably failed to explain the source of alleged cash credit. If the assessee had sufficient details to explain the alleged sum, it could have certainly filed those details at any stage. Consistently escaping from appearing/producing the alleged parties before the ld. AO and the appellate authority(ld.CIT-A) indicates that the assessee has no plausible explanation to explain the source of alleged sum of share capital and security premium and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
