SRILAB NEO PACKS LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , RANCHI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण र ांची पीठ, कोलक त में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH AT KOLKATA [वचचुअल कोर्ु] [Virtual Court] डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेख सदस्य एवां श्री सांजय शम ु, न्य धयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 29/RAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Srilab Neo Packs Pvt. Ltd..………..............................Appellant [PAN: AAACY 3093 J] Vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Ranchi...............................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Rupesh Agarwal, D/R, ACIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 15th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : January 4th, 2023 आदेश ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2010-11 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the

I.T.A. No.: 29/RAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Srilab Neo Packs Pvt. Ltd. “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ranchi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 07.12.2017 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 148 r.w.s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2016. 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past also the case was fixed for hearing on multiple occasions on 11.05.2022, 11.07.2022, 13.07.2022, 13.09.2022 & this time on 15.11.2022. There is no compliance. We, therefore, decide to adjudicate the issues on merit with the assistance of ld. D/R and on the basis of available records. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) Ranchi is bad in law and facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi eared in confirming the initiation of proceeding U/s 147. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Ranchi has eared in treating share application money received as unexplained credit U/S 68. 4. For that, others ground if any will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company. Income of Rs. 1,420/- declared in the return of income filed on 12.10.2010 for AY 2010- 11. Thereafter, based on the reasons that the assessee has received share premium which is unexplained and liable to be added as unexplained cash credit, was issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. There was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Ld. AO noticed that Rs. 84,00,000/- was received during the year but for lack of

Page 2 of 5

I.T.A. No.: 29/RAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Srilab Neo Packs Pvt. Ltd. necessary details which could explain the source of alleged sum assessment was completed after making addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and income assessed at Rs. 84,01,420/-. 5. The assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the re-opening proceedings. As regards the merits of the case, ld. CIT(A) noticed that out of Rs. 84,00,000/- only 29,78,529/- has been received during the year and since the assessee has not been able to explain the said sum, addition u/s 68 of the Act was confirmed at Rs. 29,78,529/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. D/R supported the orders of both the lower authorities. 8. We have heard ld. D/R and perused the records placed before us. As far as the legal issue raised in ground no. 2 challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is concerned, we notice that ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the same relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2013] 356 ITR 481 (Guj.) and has observed that ld. AO rightly recorded the reasons before re- opening. Since there is no representation on behalf of the assessee to rebut this finding of ld. CIT(A) and the facts before us supports the finding of ld. CIT(A), we fail to find any infirmity thereof and thus, hold that the re-opening of assessment as well as issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was valid. Page 3 of 5

I.T.A. No.: 29/RAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Srilab Neo Packs Pvt. Ltd. 9. Now, coming to the grounds on merits of the case raised in ground nos. 1 & 3 regarding the addition of Rs. 29,78,529/- sustained u/s 68 of the Act, we notice that apart from giving the name of the share applicant, no other details have been filed by the assessee. No bank details have been filed which could prove the genuineness, neither any copies of balance sheets with PAN have been filed to prove the identity and creditworthiness. Further, we notice that the assessee got fair opportunity before both the lower authorities but no details have been filed in order to explain the source of the share capital/share application money of Rs. 29,78,529/-. It, thus, shows that the assessee has no material to explain the said sum. Therefore, no interference is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 29,78,529/-. Thus, effective grounds raised on merit by the assessee are dismissed. 10. Other grounds are general in nature which need no adjudication. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Kolkata, the 4th January, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 04.01.2023 Bidhan (P.S.)

Page 4 of 5

I.T.A. No.: 29/RAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Srilab Neo Packs Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Srilab Neo Packs Pvt. Ltd., 5C, Karbala Tank Road, Kolkata-700006. 2. DCIT Central Circle-3, Ranchi. 3. CIT(A), Ranchi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. True copy By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

Page 5 of 5