9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and genuineness. The documentary evidence of flow of money from Akash Kumar to the appellant, has not been submitted including sale deed. The action of the AO is thus confirmed and the grounds relating to addition u/s 68 are dismissed. - Decided against assessee. - Shri Ravish Sood, JM And Shri Arun Khodpia, AM For the Assessee : Shri R.B. Doshi, CA For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short CIT(A) ), vide order dated 29.01.2024 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short 'The Act') for the Assessment Year 2018-19 which in turn arises from the order of order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (in short AO ), u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, dated 20.08.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made by AO invoking sec. 68 on account of share capital/premium received by the appellant, disregarding the evidence on record. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, contrary to evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33(6), no additional information or details or evidence could be submitted by the assessee, consequently, after placing reliance on several case laws, Ld. AO framed the assessment with the observation that the onus of discharging the burden of proving the creditworthiness of the share applicant is not discharged by the assessee, therefore, the amount received towards share capital and premium for Rs. 1,10,00,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee company and deemed to be the income of the assessee as envisaged under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. With such observations, an addition of the impugned amount was made u/s 68 and the taxable income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,21,72,040/-. 5. Aggrieved by said addition by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had only preferred adjournments and was unable to furnish any further explanation in support of its contentions, thus, after considering the assessment order and material available on record, Ld. CIT(A) had discussed and deliberated on the merits of the issue and have dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Dissatisfied w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation filed during the assessment proceedings regarding source was factually incorrect. Case of the assessee up to the filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT was looked after by another counsel. The assessee engaged another counsel for arguing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. Due to some confusion communication gap, it was explained before AO that Shri Ram Chandra Agrawal (investor) received Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as advance against sale of land from Akash Kumar Agrawal which was the source of his investment with assessee company. However, the actual source of investment in hands of Shri Ram Chandra Agrawal is as under:- i) Rs. 45,00,000/- invested out of amount received back against repayment of loan given earlier, to the assessee company only. ii) Advance of Rs. 55,00,000/- received from Akash Kumar Agrawal against sale of land. iii) Rs. 5 lakh received from Barbarik Tie up P. Ltd. towards director's remuneration. iv) Balance Rs. 5 lakh overdrawn from bank. 4. We are enclosing herewith following documents in order to prove nature source of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- which was invested by Shri Ram Chandra Agrawal: - Regarding source of Rs. 50 lakh received on 23.02.2018: i) Confirmat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity to prolong the litigation. With such submissions, it was the request of Ld. Sr DR that the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein merits of the issue are duly dealt with, deserves to be upheld. 10. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and case laws pressed before us in support of the contentions raised by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee was unable before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) to place its contentions even after sufficient opportunities of being heard are afforded by both the revenue authorities. On perusal of the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, wherein the explanation regarding source of funds have been split up in 4 parts, which is totally a shift from the explanations submitted before the revenue authorities. It is the submission of Ld. AR to restore the matter back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) with liberty to be assessee to raise contentions and to furnish all the additional evidence placed before us. Before accepting such a contention of the Ld. AR, it is obligatory on us to look into conduct of the assessee and the grievance whether the same is emerging from the impugned order or not, in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee appellant arising from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereas, in the present case, nothing is observed to be construed that the assessee was in any way aggrieved or saddled with erroneous findings in the impugned order. Giving a thoughtful consideration to overall facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the well contemplated view that the request of the assessee to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be acceded to, especially in a case wherein the assessee has chosen not to represent its matter or have not furnished required information and explanation before the lower authorities when adequate opportunities have been afforded, thus, we reject such a untenable prayer of the Ld. AR. Our aforesaid view is duly fortified by the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur in the case of M/s. Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit in ITA No. 50/RPR/2023 vide order dated 18.09.2023 wherein, the relevant observations are as under: 12. Now, when the assessee society, as per its volition, had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration A.Y 2017-18, i.e., either u/s 139 or in compliance to notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. ITO-2, Korba ITA No. 50/RPR/2023 limited purpose, i.e. a grievance that the assessment framed by the AO, or for that matter, order of the CIT(Appeal) were not according to law. In no case can the Tribunal be taken as a forum for an appellant who, as per his volition, had either adopted an evasive or lackadaisical approach before the lower authorities and not participated in the assessment or appellate proceedings to come up with its case for the first time before the Tribunal and, as a matter of right seek restoring of the impugned order to the file of the lower authorities for fresh adjudication. 13. Based on aforesaid observations, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. AO had rightly made the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit received in the garb of share capital / premium, in absence of plausible explanation regarding nature in source of the investment and failure of assessee to discharge its onus as mandated under the provisions of said section, which after considering the material evidence available on record Ld. CIT(A) had very judiciously deliberated upon and confirmed the addition by observi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acknowledgments were not placed on AO's record. Accordingly, all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was not placed before AO and the onus shifted to assessee to prove the above. Thus, addition was warranted under Section 68. 4.4 Further, in my view, AO is required to verify the identities of person applied for share capitals. To prevent misinformation during the assessment. This often involves providing government-issued identification documents. Proper documentation by assessee is also essential for genuine transactions. This includes, receipts, and any other relevant paperwork. The documentation which accurately reflect the terms and details of the transaction. Further, Common payment methods include bank transfers, credit cards. Cash transactions should be properly recorded and reported as required by law. 4.5 In view of the above discussion, I find that the appellant has not discharged its onus by providing details of share capital money received and by not submitting documents for creditworthiness and genuineness. The documentary evidence of flow of money from Akash Kumar to the appellant, has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
