9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the impugned income under the provisions of 115BBC, section 68 read with section 115BBE being perverse and against the statutory provisions. HELD THAT:- As the companies at West Bengal had sought to give the details of the donations from Mumbai and it was in such circumstances the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the explanation given was not bona fide. Opportunity was given to produce the Directors which was not done due to which the authorities below have noted that companies are no longer functional and are defunct and struck off by the Registrar of Companies. Nothing was brought on record that they were actually functioning at the time of donations and when they were struck off. In such circumstances, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified in concurring with the findings of CIT (A) and in confirming the impugned income of Rs.8,00,000/- under the provisions of 115BBC, section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being perverse and against the statutory provisions and as upheld in catena of judgments? B. Whether the orders of the authorities below are illegal, erroneous, without jurisdiction and thus perverse? 3. The reasoning which prevailed with the Tribunal was that the corpus donation had been received by the petitioner-Company and the said entities had been struck off the record of the registered companies and therefore, they had to be treated as shell companies. Having been struck off the registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in West- Bengal and dated 26.11.2016 by Pentium Capital Management (P) Ltd. based in Mumbai, the amounts received from the said three companies are Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs, respectively which fact had been acknowledged. 5. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the return had been filed by the appellant-assessee on 30.09.2014 by showing nil income. The case having been picked up for scrutiny under CASS, notice had been issued on 31.08.2015 and a questionnaire had been issued. The details of documents having been checked along with the Books of Accounts and vouchers-sheet that corpus donation of Rs.1,43,40,039/- had been shown and the assessee was a public charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai in two cases whereas the offices were situated related to Kolkata based companies, the genuineness was further clouded by noting as under: M/s Burligton Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. 51, Muktara m Babu Street, Kolkata- 700006, West Bengal 2,00,000/- Notices issued 06-10-2016, but received back with remarks not known or addressee moved and again notice issued on 09-11-2016 not received back. Reply has received on 15.12.2016 by post. But letter has sent from Mumbai. Present status of company in ROC is strike off. No director and office bearer are working at present. Assessee has also failed to produce the director and shareholders of this company. These facts establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer came to the conclusion that huge donations had been made to the assessee and the sources of income were not genuine and the companies were not working and the genuineness, identity, sources and creditworthiness of these companies had not been proved. Resultantly, the additions had been made. It is pertinent to notice that apart from the three companies there was additions of Rs.40 lakhs, Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs which had also been made by the Assessing Officer vide the impugned order and a total amount of Rs.53 lakhs had been added and accordingly proceedings had been initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inadequate proof of income. 8. In appeal, the assessee had been successful to the extent that another sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctually functioning at the time of donations and when they were struck off. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of these companies was rightly doubted by the Assessing Officer and in such circumstances, the additions had been made. The matter had also been taken before the Appellate Authority and the Commissioner had duly granted the benefit by thoroughly enquiring into the matter qua the other donations that had been received. 10. The question of law thus which is sought to be framed does not arise keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as before the authorities the appellant could not produce sufficient material to dispel the suspicion which had been rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
