9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record and is not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal. 3. Concisely stated, that the assessee is a private limited company, filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 11,72,040/-. Later on, the case was selected for Complete Scrutiny through "CASS", stating the issues (i) Share premium, (ii) Business expenses. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) have been issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notices, assessee filed submissions through e-proceedings from time to time which were scrutinized on test check basis. 4. On perusal of the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO observed that during the year under consideration the assessee had allotted 50,691 shares to one Shri Ramchandra Agrawal at the face value of Rs. 10/- and premium at Rs. 207 per share in turn capital and premium of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- was infused. In order to verify the creditworthiness, identity of the investor and genuineness of transaction a notice u/s 133(6) was issued. In response, though belatedly but certain information / documents were furnished by the investor such as ITR Acknowledgment, computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfied with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in the present appeal before us. 7. At the outset, it was the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (in short "The AR"), that for Ld. CIT(A) the case of the assessee was not properly looked after by the counsel engaged by the assessee and the assessee was unaware of service of notices which were served on the e-mail ID of the counsel. It was the submission of Ld. AR that before Ld. AO also the explanation furnished by the assessee was factually incorrect which is noticed by the counsel engaged by the assessee to represent before the ITAT. It is further submitted that there was confusion and communication gap due to which it was explained before the Ld. AO that the investor Shri Ramchandra Agrawal have received an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from Shri Akash Agrawal whereas the advance received against sale of land was only Rs. 55,00,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was sourced by the investor from recovery of unsecured loan from the assessee company only. To substantiate such contention Ld. AR placed before us copy of confirmation from Mr. Ramchandra Agrawal dated NIL having transaction with the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of Rs. 50 lakh received on 23.02.2018: i) Confirmation of account from assessee wherein repayment of loan of Rs. 45 lakhs is reflected against loan given earlier (page no. 01). ii) Bank statement of assessee reflecting aforesaid transaction (page no. 02 to 13). Regarding source of Rs. 60 lakh received on 26.02.2018: i) Confirmation from Akash Kumar Agrawal regarding advance received against sale of land (page no. 14). ii) Acknowledgement & computation of income of Akash Kumar Agrawal of AY 2018/19 (page no. 15 to 19). iii) Bank statement of Akash Kumar Agrawal (page no. 20 to 27). iv) Copy of sale agreement between Shri Ram Chandra Agrawal (investor) & Akash Kumar Agrawal (page no. 28 to 30). v) Confirmation from Barbarik Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. (page no. 31). The above mentioned documents are additional evidence and could not be filed before the AO for the reason that due to some confusions & communication gap, source of investment came to be wrongly stated before AO inadvertently & unintentionally and assessee was not advised to file documentary evidences. The new counsel appointed advised assessee to file necessary evidences in order to prove nature & source of amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and the grievance whether the same is emerging from the impugned order or not, in order to discourage the practice of evasive approach of the assessee before the revenue authorities below. 11. The grievance raised in ground no. 1 of the present appeal by the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) add 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 evidence on record and is not justified. However, we observed that Ld. CIT(A) had deliberated on the issue on the basis of material available on record which are also placed before us in the assessee's PB consisting of 76 pages. On perusal of the said documents which were before the revenue authorities, the observations of the revenue authorities cannot be held as erroneous or in violation of principle of natural justice only on the basis of dispute raised by the assessee in its appeal, much less which is factually contrary to the evidence on record. Under such circumstances, the allegation advanced by the assessee in ground no. 1 is found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the year under consideration A.Y 2017-18, i.e., either u/s 139 or in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act; or appeared before the A.O during the assessment proceedings or placed on his record any written submission or filed replies to the queries that were raised vide notice(s) issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act; nor despite sufficient opportunities participated in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), then, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would reveal that there was no justification for treating the cash deposits of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- (supra) in the assessee's bank account as its unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, we are of a firm conviction that no infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly approved the order passed by the A.O u/s 144 of the Act, dated 11.12.2019. 13. Although Section 253 of the Act, inter alia, vests with an assessee a statutory right to assail before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), but a careful perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that the same can be triggered only where the assessee appellant is, inter alia, ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the material evidence available on record Ld. CIT(A) had very judiciously deliberated upon and confirmed the addition by observing as under: 4.1 Appeal Notices were issued to the assessee on 27.07.2022, 14.12.2023, 02.01.2024 fixing the case for 11.08.2022, 29.12.2023, 19.01.2024 respectively. The assessee has only replied for adjournment on 10.08.2022 and 29.12.2023. 4.2 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. The assessee filed an e-return on 22.09.2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 11,72,040/-. The case underwent complete scrutiny, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The scrutiny included examination of the share capital money of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- allotted to Ram Chandra Agarwal. The assessee was asked to provide various details, but the response was incomplete. Upon verification, it was revealed that the investor was an ex-director of the assessee company. The investor claimed the source of funds as an advance from Akash Kumar Agarwal for the sale of However, no documentary evidence regarding the land sale was provided. The investor responded to a notice under section 133(6) belatedly, providing some documents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
