9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on has been filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay. It has been stated by the assessee that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Kolkata has passed an ex-parte order in the above case. The said order was received by the appellant on 11/10/2018. The appellant assessee had forwarded the said order to its Chartered Accountant who was looking after the case. As per the said Chartered Accountant, as the order was an ex-parte one, the CIT (A)I, Kolkata had powers to reinstitute the appeal upon request of the appellant. However, when no such request was filed, even after continuous follow up of the appellant, the appellant consulted a senior counsel. The senior counsel informed the appellant that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised the following grounds of appeal for the AY 201213: 1. For the based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata was not justified in upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,23,75,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, and/or modify the grounds taken herein. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. The source of income is stated to be from investment in shares. Income at Rs.3,880/ declared in ereturn of income filed on 18.10.2012 for the AY 201213. Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd assessed assessee's income at Rs.2,24,10,680/. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 2,23,75,000/. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee made no further efforts before the ld. CIT(A) to appear are filed any other documentary evidence in support of its claim. As the assessee failed to do so, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 7. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Again the assessee failed to appear before us on any of the dates of hearing. Except filing this appeal and an affidavit for condonation of delay no other details are filed. It clearly indicates that the assessee is only trying to delay the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls to explain the alleged sum, it could have certainly filed those details. Consistently escaping from appearing before the ld. AO and the appellate authority(ld.CITA) indicates that the assessee has no plausible explanation to explain the source of alleged sum of share capital and security premium. If the assessee is unable to explain the alleged cash credit and consistent escaped, the provisions of section 68 of the Act are attracted. Thus, it is held that the assessee has routed its unaccounted income in the books of account in the form of share capital and security premium by arranging bogus share capital and share premium through accommodation entry provider. 9. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
