9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1096/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2022 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 3. Assessee is a company who had originally electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 28.03.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. AO has noted that the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pite notices being issued through RPAD nor any application was filed by assessee seeking adjournment. Further, the notice issued for the present hearing by the Registry through RPAD was returned unserved with the postal remarks No such person in this address . Preferring an appeal does not mean mere formally filing it but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal. The conduct of the assessee in not appearing before the Tribunal shows the negligent approach of the assessee. The fact that the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee shows that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by it. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed share application money during the year under consideration were genuine or not. The AO rightly issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the share applicants at the addresses registered on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Even the AO issued summons to all these parties. As stated in the assessment order all the notices returned un-served. Thereafter, the AO perused the bank statement of the appellant company and noticed that there are numerous debit credit entries of the same amount on the same day. 5.3 Subsequently the AO vide order sheet entry dated 19.12.2016 asked the appellant to provide details of debit entries of bank account and prove the genuineness of these transactions. The appellant in his reply vide letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any did not provide the details of the debit entries of its bank account. The appellant company knows its affairs and its transactions. The appellant company knows the sources of the amounts credited in its bank account. The appellant company also knows the beneficiaries in respect of debit entries in its bank account. In such situation, to make things more clear and transparent, the appellant was required to provide the requisitioned details to the AO to lend credence to its contention. 5.5 The AO has rightly noted that Priya Gold Group is beneficiary of funds from AY 2013-14 onwards and definitely was not beneficiary during the period relevant to AY 2009- 10. The appellant company should have provided details of beneficiary during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless - (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant with different factual matrix is debatable. 5.12 Considering the facts stated above, in my considered and reasoned opinion the appellant undoubtedly has failed in course of assessment and appellate proceedings to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the so-called share applicants and genuineness of transactions. The AO has rightly invoked the provisions of the section 68 of the Act to make addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- on account of share application money and added it back to the total income of the appellant. Thus, I hold that the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- on account of share application money is justified and therefore the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act made by the AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
