HRISHIKESH MEGA TOWNWHIP (P) LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 47/KOL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 December 2022AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not provided any supporting details for its share capital claim and had not explained the significant delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's appeal against an addition of Rs. 10,22,00,000/- on account of bogus share capital was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the ITAT, despite repeated notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of share capital as bogus was justified given the assessee's non-cooperation. Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata dated 03.10.2016 passed for A.Y. 2009-10.

1.

Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited 2. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. On 23.08.2022, one alleged employee of the assessee- company Shri Amit Singh appeared, but thereafter no one has appeared. Notice has been sent through e-mail also. From the record, it transpires that no one has appeared before the ld. CIT(Appeals) or the ld. Assessing Officer. Considering the above situation, we deem it appropriate to hear this appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.

3.

The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal. Its main grievance is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer, whereby an addition of Rs.10,22,00,000/- was made with the aid of section 68 on account of bogus share capital. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28.10.2009 declaring total income of Rs.289/-. An assessment order was passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.43,730/-. This order was set aside by the ld. Commissioner by exercising the powers under section 263 vide its order dated 01.03.2013. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) directing the assessee to submit the necessary evidence in support of its claim for share capital. The assessee wrote back to the ld. Assessing Officer that it

Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited has filed an appeal before the ITAT against 263 order, hence, proceeding be kept in abeyance. However, the assessee failed to submit any detail of it’s appeal pending before the ITAT and the assessee did not appear before the ld. Assessing Officer, even on repeated notices did not file anything before the ld. Assessing Officer. Under the compelling circumstances, ld. Assessing Officer treated the alleged share capital as bogus and made the addition of Rs.10,22,00,000/-.

4.

In appeal, again the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals), did not submit any detail. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has given a number of opportunities to the assessee. Thus under the compelling circumstances, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has to concur with the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

5.

Before us, the assessee has not submitted any detail. The line of argument advanced by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that in the proceeding under section 263, it has submitted the necessary details, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Revenue Authorities to call for those details from the record of ld. CIT and should have not made the addition.

Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited 6. We have gone through the record carefully and from the conduct of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee has nothing to say in support of its alleged bogus share capital claim. Apart from the above, we also notice that impugned order was passed in 2016 by the ld. 1st Appellate Authority, whereas appeal has been filed in 2021. The only explanation taken by the assessee is that Certified Copy was obtained by the assessee on 03.12.2020. There is a huge gap of roughly four years, which has not been explained by the assessee, or no one has responded to the notices issued by the Tribunal. Accordingly we do not find any merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 16th day of December, 2022 Copies to :(1) Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited, Flat AH-5- 8/15, Lake View Housing Complex, Near Anandamayee Ashram, B/1, Drainage Canel Road, Howrah-711102

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata,

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →