M/S PARADISE VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR. 24(1), HOOGHLY

The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time-barred by 660 days. However, we find that all these days are of COVID period. The period of limitation is being excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order, passed time to time in suo motu Writ Petition No. 2 of 2020. The directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Court and have been extended from time to time and if the COVID period is being excluded keeping in view the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, then there is no substantial delay in filing the appeal on the part of the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. Notices have been sent through Registered Post at the address mentioned in Form 36 filed by the assessee, which have returned un-served. Since the assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal, therefore, with the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and bad in law.

(2) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order under wrong impression that the assessee avoided submitting bank statement contrary of the fact 2

We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the relevant record placed before us. The only issue raised by the assessee is with regard to the addition of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs.36,00,000/- We find that during the course of re-assessment proceedings carried out after serving of notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and also the proceedings being carried out under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that based on the information received from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4(1), Kolkata about the concerns controlled and managed by Vikas Chowdhary, Anit Kumar Khemka, Amit Dalmia etc., were found to be engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital, share premium, unsecured loans, bogus commodity profit, prep- arranged bogus LTCG/STCL etc. to various beneficiaries/parties. The investigation also revealed about the cash trail movement of unaccounted cash of around Rs.13.35 crores through the bank accounts operated by the said entry providers. There was no other financial rationale behind such transaction. The assessee received Rs.36,00,000/- from one of such alleged entry provider Caspian Marketing Pvt. Limited on 14.02.2009. In the assessment proceedings, assessee miserably failed to satisfy the Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Paradise Vincom Pvt. Limited ld. Assessing Officer with the creditworthiness of the cash creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Even before the ld. CIT(Appeals), not even after been provided sufficient opportunity, he did not appear and not file any evidence to explain the source of alleged sum. It seems that the assessee does not possess any concrete material to justify the genuineness of the alleged cash credit and genuineness of the cash creditor. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that since the assessee miserably failed to explain the source of alleged sum, provision of section 68 of the Act has rightly been invoked by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus no interference is called for in the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals). Addition made under section 68 of the Act for not explaining the credit of Rs.36,00,000/- is confirmed and grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) (Manish Borad) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 16th day of February, 2023 Copies to :(1) M/s. Paradise Vincom Pvt. Limited, 16, N.S. Road, 2nd Floor, Shri N.K. Goyal, Kolkata-700001 (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 4