M/S. TELESONIC SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Heard and perused the record.

As the case was called for hearing today non-appeared for the assessee. Record shows earlier only on one occasion out of six, appearances on behalf of the assessee was made. The notices stand issued for today and have been received by the report of refusal. The notices were issued as the address of V.K.Sehgal & Associates, CAs, whose address was mentioned in Form 36 as the address for service of notice. Accordingly, no further notice is justified and arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities Below.

Appreciating the matter on record, it can be observed that as far ground no. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned the same have been raised on the basis of issuance of notices by the Ld. AO on the wrong address. In this context, it can be appreciated that in the assessment order address A-53, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi has been mentioned. The same is as per the PAN card details. Ld. AR has repeatedly issued notices u./s 143(2) and the notices dated 26.10.2010 was received back with the report that ‘there is no such company’, The appeal order shows that same address was mentioned by the assessee in Form no. 35. However, before this Tribunal no other address than the one given for service for notice upon the Chartered Accountant is mentioned. Thus, there appears to be no irregularity or illegality in the service of notices by Ld. AO requiring interference at this stage the grounds no. 1, 2 and 3 are accordingly decided against the assessee.

In regard to ground no. 4 and 5 it can be observed that the Ld. AO had passed order u/s 144 of the Act and before Ld. CIT(A) additional evidences under Rule 46A were filed on which remand report was sought from Ld. AO ./Del/2017 M/s. Telesonic Systems (I) P. Ltd. 3 and based upon the same Ld. CIT(A) has benefited the assessee to the extent of reducing the addition made by Ld. AO on account of security premiums from Rs. 65,23,020/- to Rs. 31,23,000/- only and in the absence of lack of evidence and verification about genuineness of the creditors, confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,47,000/- by treating increase in share capital as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. No different opinion can be formed. The appeal is dismissed.