M/S. VEDIK VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Per Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata dated 26th February, 2018 passed for assessment year 2012-13.

(b) The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,070/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Vedik Vintrade Pvt. Limited and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer did not discuss much about the factual details, but he observed that assessee-company had raised fresh paid-up share capital of Rs.40,51,00,000/- including share premium by issue of fresh shares during the accounting year relevant to this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter observed that as per section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is required to fulfil three conditions, namely identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act to the Directors of the assessee-company for personal attendance, but no one appeared. Similarly, the assessee did not submit a single document in support of its case demonstrating the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants. It has also not demonstrated how this transaction is a genuine one. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.40,51,00,000/-.

Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Vedik Vintrade Pvt. Limited 6. With the assistance of ld. CIT(DR), we have gone through the record carefully. In the absence of any details submitted by the assessee, it is very difficult to record any finding of fact. The ld. Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has raised share capital including share premium during this year, but did not submit any detail in support of such receipt of the money. The assessee did not prosecute its appeal before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority as well as the 2nd Appellate Authority. Thus after going through the assessment order, we do not find any error in it. The findings of the ld. Assessing Officer are confirmed. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), though not well speaking order but in the absence of details, ld. CIT(Appeals) could not record any other finding. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.