9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequent upon the search carried on 01.06.2012 because of the following: a. Because after the search the assessments were to be framed under a. material found during the course of search. Since no incriminating sec 153A on the basis of the search material found in the course of search and additions were to be made on the basis of incriminating material found, the additions made outside the search material! as such the order passed by LD CIT(A) is illegal. b. Because any additions made without search material is outside the b. scope of assessment framed u/s sec 153A so the order passed by LD CIT(A) is illegal. 2. On the factual position also, the order passed by LD CIT(A) is not the possession of the official liquidator and the directors of the tenable as the group company of the assessee company was under liquidation and the records of the assessee company were also in company were not allowed to have any access on the records as such the assessee company was unable to produce the A.R. on behalf of the company before the LD.CIT(A). 3, Because after the search carried on the group by the department 3. income of Shri Mahdoom Bava Bahrudeen Nooral the investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of seized material relating to assessee. The assessee did not comply with this notice also. Therefore, the assessee was issued a final show cause notice on 27- 02-2015. The assessee was intimated that no return of income have been submitted by him and no details in response to notice dated 02-12-2014 as well as 19-01-2015. In this notice, the assessee was also confronted to the information s contained in the hard disc seized during the course of search operation at C-125, Sector-2, Noida. The assessee was also asked to explain the information s available in the MCA site in respect of the company. In response to this notice, letter dated 09-03-2015 was received from Sh. Mahdoom Bava. He informed that he is no more director of company since F.Y. 2009-10 and the company is not in operation from F.Y. 2010-11. He further stated that the record of the company are in the premises of M/s Naftogaz India (P) Ltd., C-125A, Sector-2, Noida. M/s Naftogaz India (P) Ltd. has gone into liquidation and the asset and records of the Company are sealed by Official Liquidator of Delhi. Hence, he do not have any access to record. He requested for adjournment for submitting the reply. The assessee did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28/07/2014 None appeared 2 142(1)/questionnaire 02/12/2104 10/12/2014 None appeared 3 142(1)/questionnaire 09/01/2105 19/01/2105 None appeared 4 Show cause 27/02/2015 09/03/2015 Request letter for adjournment 09/03/2015 16/03/2015 None appeared In view of the above, the A.O. was of the view that assessee has deliberately and willfully, did not comply the above notices and therefore, completed the assessment on the basis of information available on record, information from the hard disc seized during the course of search operation and information available on MCA site. (iii) It has been stated by the A.O. that the assessee has received share capital of Rs. 5,00,000/-, during the F.Y. 2008-09, relating to A.Y. 2009-10, which has been shown in the balance sheet, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, the A.O. was of the view that the assessee failed to discharge its onus cast upon. In these facts, the A.O. considered the share capital of Rs. 5,00000/-, as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act and made the addition to the total income. (iv) In the appellate proceedings, inspite of affording several opportunities, the appellant failed to furnish any details/evidences to substantiate the objections taken in the grounds, in respect of addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, on account of share capital. In the statement of fact, the appellant has stated that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was introduced by the assessee company as share capital, which is minimum capital ought to have been held by a limited company. As the premises of company was sealed, therefore, it was not possible to furnish the information. This submission of the appellant is not acceptable, since nothing was stated before the A.O. in the assessment proceedings and also in the appellate proceedings, except mentioning in the statement of fact and therefore, this claim is not substantiated by the appellant. From the above, it is clear that, if A.O. can fetch the information from MCA site, then who pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
