Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Present for: Appellant by : Shri S. Murarka, FCA Respondent by : Shri Biswanth Das, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 22.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2023 O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-14, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 52/CIT(A)-14/Wd-13(2)/2015-16 dated 22.02.2018 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward- 13(2), Kolkata u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.03.2015.
Grounds raised by the assessee are descriptive and elaborative which appears to be ten in numbers. On perusal of these grounds, the moot point involved is in respect of addition of Rs.6,29,88,940/- made by the Ld. AO towards share capital and share premium raised by the assessee during the year. 2.1. In this case, assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2012 reporting total income nil with a current year loss of Rs.1093/-. The M/s. Kailash Trading Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. In the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO noted that assessee has raised share capital for an amount of Rs.5,29,70,022/- by issuing 2,05,740 no. of shares with face value of Re.1 at a premium of Rs.256.46 per share. 2.2. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO for want of details and explanation in respect of the share capital including share premium raised by the assessee, issued a show cause notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act which is reproduced in the assessment order as table-A. The same is extracted below for ease of reference:
M/s. Kailash Trading Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 2.3. Since the details as mentioned in the notice above remained uncomplied by the assessee, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte u/s. 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.5,29,70,000/- towards unexplained cash credit for share capital raised during the year and of Rs.18,029/- towards disallowance on expenses incurred. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
None appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) though as many as twelve dates of hearing were fixed by the Ld. CIT(A), details of which are tabulated in the order of Ld. CIT(A). While disposing of the appeal ex parte, Ld. CIT(A) observed as under: “The present appeal is against the 'order u/s.144 passed by the A.O. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and the order of the A.O. as already available on records. The appellant failed to offer any explanation or submission in support of the grounds raised in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced to substantiate the appeal against the order of the A.O. despite adequate opportunity having been provided. The material on record including the assessment order and the statement of facts
M/s. Kailash Trading Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 accompanying the grounds of appeal were examined. This is an appeal of the appellant and the onus lies upon him to keep the appeal office abreast of his whereabouts if not indeed try to pursue his own appeal. On the contrary, the appeal office, after receiving an appeal, seems now to be suddenly beholden to the appellant to try and trace him out and make sure that he defends his own appeal. If an appellant does file an appeal, then he should at least show a modicum of interest in pursuing it. The appellant in this case, is showing no such interest. The appeal therefore cannot but be decided on the material on record which in this case includes the grounds of appeal, the accompanying statement of facts and the assessment order. These have been perused. As in the instant case the appellant has not been able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious without any basis, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the A.O.”
3.1. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Before us also, at the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not demonstrate its claim against the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by placing relevant documents and corroborative material. He only referred to certain documents which were furnished before the Ld. AO as noted in para 3(b) in his order. The said para 3(b) of the order of Ld. AO is extracted below:
“b) In the course of the proceedings, the assessee Co. through a messenger, sent across the bare minimum details of the P&L A/c, B/sheet, hard copy of the ITR, list of share allotted parties, copy of bank account statements and some forms of ROC, Kolkata. Neither the books of accounts of the assessee company nor of the share allottee Cos. were produced. The bank entries thus remained unexplained. Thus, the intricacies and complexities of such noticeably high value transactions couldn’t be deciphered.”
4.1. Ld. Counsel referred to the submission dated 16.05.2018 placed before the Ld. CIT(A), containing statement of facts and ground of appeal. Considering the inability of the Ld. Counsel to furnish necessary documentary evidence to substantiate its claim in respect of M/s. Kailash Trading Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 addition made by the Ld. AO and on going through the findings given by the ld. AO in the assessment order, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), as extracted above. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.