VIDYA SHREE BUILDCON PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 26(2), NEW DELHI

Before we proceed to decide the appeal, it is necessary to observe, when the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

On perusal of record, it is noticed, when the appeal was listed for hearing on 18.01.2022, no one had appeared on behalf of the assessee.

The record further reveals that the hearing notice issued to the assessee through post in the address mentioned in the appeal memo could not be served on the assessee despite two attempts being made by the postal authorities. Therefore, the notice was returned back un- served with the postal remark “Left”.

The aforesaid facts clearly reveal lack of interest of the assessee in pursuing the present appeal. That being the case, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending any further. Therefore, the appeal is heard ex parte qua the assessee with the assistance of learned Departmental Representative and based on facts and material available on record.

The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.2.2 crores made under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.55,15,440. In course of assessment proceedings, while verifying the audited balance sheet, assessing officer noticed substantial increase in unsecured loans during the year. Thus, he called upon the assessee to file the details of unsecured loan and also furnish supporting evidence to prove the genuineness of such loan transactions. After verifying the details furnished by the assessee, he found that the assessee has not furnished the address of the persons from whom loan was taken. As alleged by the assessing officer, though, the assessee was asked to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, however, the assessee did not file any supporting evidence despite several opportunities being granted. Since, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation and evidence in response to the query raised by the assessing officer, he proceeded to treat the entire loan amount of Rs.2,25,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Though, assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), however, he sustained the addition made by the assessing officer.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record.

Undisputedly, assessee is aggrieved with the addition made of Rs.2.22 crores under Section 68 of the Act. As observed earlier, in course of assessment proceedings, assessee did not furnish any supporting evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the parties from whom loan was availed. The assessee also failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Thus, none of the ingredients of section 68 of the Act could be satisfactorily established by the assessee. Before the learned First Appellate Authority, assessee furnished certain additional evidences and sought admission of them under Rule 46A.

On a perusal of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is evident, the additional evidences sought to be furnished by the assessee are mostly its own documents and must be internally available with the assessee. The assessee has not furnished any satisfactory explanation why such documents could not be furnished in course of assessment proceedings. As rightly observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee cannot adduce any additional evidence as a matter of right. The assessee has to explain satisfactorily why such evidence could not be furnished in the earlier proceedings.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.