PROGRESSIVE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/AC, CIRCLE 1, PATNA

The appeal is time barred by 3 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition saying that the assessee is not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and he has not received the physical copy of the order. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee and the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee was reopened by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019. The assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 12.12.2019 assessed income at Rs.11,74,743/- by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by the order of

After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not been able to submit any evidence regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the case of M/s. Fairdeal Pharmeco Pvt. Ltd except for its ITR. In the case of Shri Rajesh Maskara, the appellant has submitted the copy of ITR and his bank accounts and a general confirmation from him that he had given loan of Rs.8,50,000/- to the appellant. However, it is observed from the details submitted by Shri Rajesh Maskara that he has advanced these amounts to the appellant only after substantial cash deposits and transfers of credit into his bank account. Therefore, the creditworthiness of Shri Rajesh Maskara and the genuineness of the transaction is doubtful. Hence, the addition of Rs.11,74,743/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act made by the AO is hereby confirmed. The appeal on these grounds are dismissed”.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing inspite of service of notices. Tribunal has given sufficient opportunities but there was no representation from the side of assessee.

I have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. It was the submission of the ld. D.R. that the assessee has not provided any evidence regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions before the ld. Assessing Officer, (A.Y. 2012-2013) Progressive Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. ld. CIT(Appeals) and also even before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded that the orders passed by the revenue authorities be upheld.

It is an admitted fact that the ld. Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.11,74,743/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, but the assessee could not prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer made the addition.

Before the first appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the copy of ITR in the case of M/s. Fairdeal Pharmeco Pvt. Limited and in the case of Shri Rajesh Maskara, and his bank accounts and also filed confirmation letters from them saying that they had given loan of Rs.8,50,000/- to the appellant. On this aspect, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed from the details submitted by Shri Rajesh Maskara that he has advanced these amounts to the appellant only after substantial cash deposits and transfers of credit into his bank account. Before me also, he has not submitted any other details to specify the conditions stipulated under section 68 of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and non-availability of any evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction, I am of the considered view that the assessee failed to prove that the loan transactions are genuine. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.