MAAN CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6857/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the AO regarding bogus purchases of shares and the payment of brokerage. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was processed, and the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about escapement of income related to share transactions. The AO made additions for unexplained expenditure and brokerage, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO for unexplained expenditure under Section 69C and for brokerage under Section 68 were justified, and whether the assessee had provided sufficient rebuttal evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 11.05.2022Pronounced: 20.05.2022

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, New Delhi, dated 17.06.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law by confirming an addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by assessing officer in his order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law by confirming an addition of Rs. 16,643/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by assessing officer in his order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Maan Cements p. Ltd. Vs. ITO 3. The appellant reserves to itself, the right to add, alter, amend, substitute and withdraw any ground(s) of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

2.

At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings. It is seen from the record that despite having been given opportunity, the assessee has not been attending the proceedings since 24.12.2020. Notice of hearing sent through speed post has been returned unserved by the postal authorities with remark “left”. The assessee has not provided any fresh address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being decided on the basis of material placed on record.

3.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income on 29.9.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 3,18,600/-. The return was thereafter processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. The Assessing Officer was having information regarding escapement of income for assessment, relating to the transaction of 5000 equity shares of M/s KCL Infra Projects Ltd., amounting to Rs. 3,32,000/-. Subsequently, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 16,643/- being the brokerage/commission paid to the broker. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering the submissions sustained the finding of the Assessing and dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

Apropos ground nos. 1 & 2 the learned Sr. DR strongly relied on the orders of the authorities below and contended that the decision of the authorities below is well reasoned and the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction.

Maan Cements p. Ltd. Vs. ITO 5. I have heard learned DR and perused the material on record. I find that the Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had used a pre arranged device in form of booking of bogus purchases of shares. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- made u/s 69C is hereby sustained.

6.

In respect of addition of Rs. 16,643/- u/s 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had paid 5% brokerage on this transaction. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the orders of authorities below. Grounds raised

in this appeal are rejected.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 20th May, 2022.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →