M/S. BRIGHT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal. However, its main grievance is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,94,12,000/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

We have issued notices of hearing through Registered Post and the notices issued to the assessee returned back with the Postal Remark that “no such person on the given address”. With the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income electronically on 12.03.2013. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee-company had received large share application money along with the premium. Therefore, he issued summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act to the Directors for their appearance, but the Directors did not appear before the ld. Assessing Officer. He also directed the assessee to submit requisite details demonstrating the identity of the share applicants, their Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Bright Vyapaar Pvt. Limited creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, but according to the finding of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee did not submit any details. Hence he made an addition of Rs.2,94,12,000/-.

Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The statement of facts filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) is a very brief statement. It contains only five lines and in these five lines, it has only pleaded that return was filed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act declaring a ‘NIL’ income. The assessment has been passed under section 143(3) on 02.03.2015 determining the total income of Rs.2,94,12,000/-. Apart from this statement, it has not pleaded how the ld. Assessing Officer has committed an error in making the addition. It has not annexed the details of share applicants, their Bank accounts etc. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority had issued fresh notices, but it did not respond. Hence, ld. CIT(Appeals) has gone through the statement of facts and the assessment order and concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer.

The statement of facts filed before us read as under:- “During the year under consideration, the appellant company was engaged in the business of investment in shares. The appellant company filed its return of income on 12.03.2013 declaring a NIL income. The return was processed and the case Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Bright Vyapaar Pvt. Limited of the appellant company was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, the Ld/- Assessing Officer ("AO") completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961("the Act") vide order dated 02.03.2015 after making addition of Rs. 2,94,12,000 under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credit. On being aggrieved by the order of Ld/- AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Various notices were served upon the assessee and the assessee sought time in view of the fact that the appeal involved third party documents which were required to be extracted from the concerned parties beyond the control of the assessee company. Such documents were not provided to the assessee by the third parties on time due to which the assessee has no option but to seek further time from the first appellate authority. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to submit the documents before the appellate authority in support of its claim. The assesese was again served with notice dated 04.11.2022 and in response to the same the assessee requested for adjournment upto 26.11.2022. However, the Ld/- CIT(A) ignoring the adjournment request of the assessee passed an ex- parte order under section 250 of the Act dated 14.11.2022 confirming the addition of Rs. 2,94,12,000 under section 68 of the Act. Thus, on being aggrieved by the above addition upheld by Ld/- CIT(A), the appellant company prefers an appeal before your Honours in search of relief”.

With the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. The statement as well as the finding recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer again does not contain who are the applicants, what is their financial health, how the transaction has been made, i.e. details of bank accounts etc. It appears to us that for the sake of completing the formalities, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as before the ITAT. In other words, we do not know why the assessee has been keeping the litigation alive if it is not interested in prosecuting it. Therefore, after going through the 4 Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Bright Vyapaar Pvt. Limited orders of revenue authorities below, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 4th, 2023.