9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delay. In the absence of condonation petition explaining the delay, the present appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. Appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently absent and the Tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya [ 1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] , it was held that appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine. - SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These appeals are filed by the Assessee as against two appellate orders dated 09.11.2016 and 03.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition by observing as follows: 5.1 I have carefully gone through the observations made by the AO, in the assessment order while making said addition. It is observed that A.O. has made addition of Rs. 16,61,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act being the amount of investment made by various persons in the shares of the appellant company Further, AO has also made addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being the amount of advance received from various persons by the appellant company. It is seen from the order of assessment that M/s, Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pushpadant Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. have made investment in the shares of the appellant company similarly, two individuals namely, Shri Pawankumar Agarwal and Smt. Zameer Pawankumar Agarwal have also made investments in the shares of the appellant. M/s, Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt. Ltd. has invested Rs. 9,50,00,000/- and Mis Pushpadant Commotrade Pvt. Ltd has invested Rs. 4,12,50,000/- in the shares of the appellant. Shri Pawankumar Agarwal has invested Rs. 1,83,40,000/- and Smt. Zameer Pawankumar Agarwal Rs. 1,16,40,000/- in the shares of the appellant company It is seen from para 5 of the order of assessment th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 5 of the assessment order that appellant had informed A.O that it had furnished the address as available on its records. Appellant has further stated that it is not in a position to understand why summons could not be served by the Investigation unit in Kolkata It was also suggested by the appellant that these two corporate entities might have moved to new place and that can be the reason the summons could not be served to them and parties could not be found by the Inspector of department Further appellant has also mentioned that it has made contacts with the two corporate entities and has now ascertained their new address which appellant has provided to the AO. Both addresses were of Kolkata as appellant has also provided that these companies are existing companies in the records of ROC and both companies have filed Return of Income. Appellant has submitted acknowledgment of their Return of Income Appellant has also submitted audited balance sheet of these two companies and the certificate of registration issued by Reserve Bank of India to M/s. Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt. Ltd. Thus, according to the appellant it has submitted all the information before A.O. and has discharged o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sactions with respect to all investments made by Mis Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt.Ltd., M/s Pushpadant Commotrade Pvt Ltd Shri Pawankumar Agarwal and Smt Zameer Pawankumar Agarwal amounting - to Rs. 16,61,50,000/- Thus, by invoking section 68 of the Act A.O. has made an addition of this amount into total income of the appellant. 5.3 In August, 2016 Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in its judgment in the case of ACIT v/s Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1716/Ahd/2012 dtd. 18/08/2016 has dealt with the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of a person by means of share capital or application in the company. Although in the said judgment it was established that investment was made through accommodation entry operator, going to the facts of the case under consideration and although it is not proved that M/s. Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt. Ltd. and others were accommodation entry operators, the facts and circumstances go on to prove that A.O, was right in questioning identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors in its share capital in the said judgment delivered by Hon'ble Tribunal, appellant had also submitted all the necessary documentation such as audited acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I agree with the contentions of the AO that appellant has completely failed to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of Shri Pankajkumar Agarwal, Smt. Zameer Pawankumar Agarwal as well as M/s Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt. Ltd Accordingly. I hereby confirm the addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/- on account of advances received through Shri Pawankumar Agarwal, Smt Zameer Pawankumar Agarwal and Mis Gopalka Motor Investo Pvt. Ltd. by the appellant The addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/ is hereby confirmed. Thus ground of appeal No raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Accordingly Ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. AO has passed the assessment order in violation of the principles of natural justice and equity by not providing the copy of the report of DDIT(Inv) Unit 3(3), Kolkata on which reliance has been place to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 11.03.2015. Hence, the assessment so made requires to be cancelled. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 16,61,50,000/- u/s 68 being investments made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n limine. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 28/AHD/2018 relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14 8. In this case, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 14.10.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 9,52,27,210/-. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of - (a) Rs. 24,74,05,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act being the share application money received from various parties, (b) Rs. 6,94,61,653/- being the purchases are not genuine and also disallowed proportionate depreciation claim thereon and (c) disallowed Rs. 7,49,41,352/- being the sale transactions with various parties as not genuine. 8.1, Thus the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,52,18,259/- and demanded tax thereon. 9. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By a very detailed order, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions of Rs. 25,51,37,259/- and deleted the addition of Rs. 80,600/- being the nearest value of the share price and premium thereon. 10. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising various grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
