SHUBHKAMNA BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. These are the four appeals filed by one assessee namely 1. Subhkamana BUildtech private limited having its office at plot number 197 - E, pocket IV, Mayur Vihar, phase 1, New Delhi 92 for assessment year 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12 and 2012 - 13 against the orders of the Commissioner of income tax appeals IV, Kanpur dated 21st of March 2018 for all those years. These were heard together and are being disposed of, for the sake 2. of convenience, by this common order. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

3. (Assessment year : 2009-101 : "

1. That the learned Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making addition of Rs.1,28,80,000/- on account of Unexplained Unsecured Loans in the Balance Sheet without asking for any details of the same and ignoring the fact that the Unsecured loans previously added to the Income is again added in the next AY. Hence addition made by AO is arbitrary and absurd & may please be deleted. 2 The Balance Sheet filled with the AO through speed post clearly show the Rate and Depreciation chart however the learned AO has completely ignored the submission of he assessee and made a Addition of Rs.2,34,318/-. However the same was already disallowed by the assessee while filling his return of Income. In view of the above this addition of Rs.2,34,318/- is wrong in law and facts and may please be deleted.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Authority below has erred in law by not accepting the submission of the assessee and ignoring the submission of the assessee is against the principle of natural justice. The assessment completed as ex-party assessment as per the provision of Section 144 of the IT act is illegal and unlawful, hence required to be quashed.

4. That the Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making the assessment of the assessee U/s 144 of the IT act without giving proper opportunity by not issuing the show cause notice or not is suing notice U/s 142(1) for concluding the case ex- party assessment U/s. 144 which is prerequisite condition for assessment U/s 144 of the IT act, hence assessment made illegal and required to be quashed.

5. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in not entertaining the additional evidences under rule 46A of the IT Act. Rule 1962 filed before appellate proceedings to adjudicate upon substantial cause.

6. That the appellant craves to leave to add/delete/ alter all/any of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. " f Assessment year : 2010-11) : "1. That the Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making addition of Rs.29,676/- on account of Filed loss in ITR against NIL turnover. Which may please be deleted during assessment proceeding and ignoring submission.

2. That the Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making addition of Rs.5,13,64,000/- on account of Unexplained Unsecured Loans in the Balance Sheet without asking for any details of the same and ignoring the fact that the Unsecured loans previously (AY 2008-09 to 2009-10) added to the Income is again added in the next 2010-2011. Hence addition made by AO is arbitrary and absurd & may please be deleted.

3. That the Authority below has erred in making addition on account of Unsecured Loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. When the AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,64,000/- under the head Unsecured Loan. This addition is repetitive in nature in the same assessment year. The same income cannot be assessed twice in any assessment year. Hence in the sake of Justice this addition of Rs.50,00,000/- may please be deleted.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Authority below has erred in law by not accepting the submission of the assessee and ignoring the submission of the assessee is against the principle of natural justice. The assessment completed as ex-parte assessment as per the provision of Section 144 of the IT act is illegal and unlawful, hence required to be quashed. 5. That the Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making the assessment of the assessee U/s 144 of the IT act without giving proper opportunity by not issuing the show cause notice or not issuing notice U/s 142(1) for concluding the case ex-parte assessment U/s 144 which is pre-requisite condition for assessment U/s 144 of the IT act, hence assessment made illegal and required to be quashed. 6. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in not entertaining the additional evidences under rule 46A of the IT Act. Rule 1962 filed before appellate proceedings to adjudicate upon substantial cause. 7. That the appellant craves to leave to add/delete/ alter all/any of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. " ITA, No. 4872/Pel/2018 (Assessment year : 2011-12) : "1. That the Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making addition of Rs.3,10,781/- on account of Filed loss in ITR against NIL turnover. Which may please be deleted. 2. That the learned Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making addition of Rs.3,34.49,000/- on account of Unexplained Unsecured Loans in the Balance Sheet without asking for any details of the same and ignoring the fact that the Unsecured loans previously (AY 2008-09 to 2010-11) added to the Income is again added in the AY 2011-2012. Hence addition made by AO is arbitrary and absurd & may please be deleted. 3. That the Authority below has erred in making addition on account of Unsecured Loan of Rs.3,31,50,000/- from Om Sai Associates and Om Sai Trading. When the AO has made addition of Rs.3,34,49,000/- in the year same assessment year under the head Unsecured Loan. This addition is repetitive in nature in the same assessment year/The same income can not be assessed twice in any assessment year. Hence in the interest of Justice his addition of Rs.3,31,50,000/- may please be deleted.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in adding Rs.68,00,000/- to the Income of the assessee on the basis of Audit report of the other company (Rudra Buildwell Pvt Ltd). Also as explained in the order that PDC means Post dated cheques and must be reflected in Books of accounts. It is pertinent to mark here that PDC need not be shown in the books of accounts as they could be canceled or not. given to party. Hence addition made on this ground could not be sustained and may please be deleted.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the AO has erred in law by not accepting the submission of the assessee and ignoring the submission of the assessee is against the principle of natural justice. The assessment completed as ex-parte assessment as per the provision of Section 144 of the IT act is illegal and unlawful, hence required to be quashed.

6. That the Authority below has erred in law and in facts in making the assessment of the assessee U/sl44 of the IT act without giving proper opportunity by not issuing the show cause notice or not issuing notice U/s 142(1) for concluding the case ex- parte assessment U/sl44 which is pre-requisite condition for assessment U/s 144 of the IT act, hence assessment made illegal and required to be quashed.

7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not entertaining the additional evidences under rule 46A of the IT Act. Rule 1962 filed before appellate proceedings to adjudicate upon substantial cause.

8. That the appellant craves to leave to add/delete/ alter all/any of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. " ITA. No, 4873/Del72018 f Assessment year : 2012-13):

"1. The Authority below has erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.191,40,06,913/- on the basis of Budgeted figures from seized documents which has no relevance as it is not signed audited or dated and making its own absorbed calculation without taking into consideration the audit report, balance sheet and computation.