CENTROID CAPITAL PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2) (2) , MUMBAI

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - - 16, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in passing the [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in passing the [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in passing the order dated 24.06.2019 up order dated 24.06.2019 upholding the action of the Ld. Income holding the action of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Tax Officer - 9(2)(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. 9(2)(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. A.O.'] in making various additions and disallowances without A.O.'] in making various additions and disallowances without A.O.'] in making various additions and disallowances without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the order dated 24.06.2019 passed b order dated 24.06.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and y Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and the same may be quashed. the same may be quashed. 2. Appellate Order passed without providing the Appellant an Appellate Order passed without providing the Appellant an Appellate Order passed without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 24.06.2019 under section 250 of the Act without the Act without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned appellate order is being heard. Thus, the impugned appellate order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the same may be quashed and set aside. and the same may be quashed and set aside. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the ate that during the period when the notices were issued the Appellant's period when the notices were issued the Appellant's Director were not available in India. The notices were Director were not available in India. The notices were issued in physical form whereas the Applicant had issued in physical form whereas the Applicant had requested to issue the notices on email id provided in requested to issue the notices on email id provided in Form No. 35. Thus, the various notices issued by Ld. arious notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the Directors of the CIT(A) were not received by the Directors of the Appellant. Hence, the same were remained to be Appellant. Hence, the same were remained to be compiled with. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the compiled with. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 24.06.2019 may be set aside and impugned order dated 24.06.2019 may be set aside and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the g heard may be provided to the Appellant to explain its case.

Addition by treating the term deposit with the Shamrao Vithal Addition by treating the term deposit with the Shamrao Vithal Addition by treating the term deposit with the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank as unexplained investment under section 69 operative Bank as unexplained investment under section 69 operative Bank as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act unjustified of the Act unjustified - Rs.10,00,000/- i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. ding the action of Ld. A.O. in treating the term deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- kept with in treating the term deposit of Rs.10,00,000/ the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd as operative Bank Ltd as Unexplained Cash Credit under section 69 of the Act Unexplained Cash Credit under section 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. Hence, the addition of ective. Hence, the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act is unjustified under section 69 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the term deposit The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the term deposit with the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd operative Bank Ltd represents initial contribution made by the Directors of de by the Directors of the Appellant on the formation of the Appellant the Appellant on the formation of the Appellant company. Thus, the term deposit was made out of funds company. Thus, the term deposit was made out of funds available with the Directors of the Appellant company. available with the Directors of the Appellant company. The Appellant, therefore, prays that provisions of section The Appellant, therefore, prays that provisions of section 69 of the Act are not applicable in its case. Hence, not applicable in its case. Hence, addition of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act is under section 69 of the Act is against the provisions of law and the same may be against the provisions of law and the same may be deleted. 4. The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, the same are leviable. the same are leviable.