M/S. JSM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), KOLKATA

Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 02 days. Though the assessee has not filed condonation petition, but looking to the 1. M/s. JSM Properties P.Ltd facts of the case, we condone the delay of 02 days in filing this appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of assessee. A perusal of file shows that the case of assessee was fixed on various occasions. It seems that the assessee is not interested to prosecute its appeal. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to adjudicate the appeal on merits ex parte assessee on the basis of material available on record and with the assistance of the ld. DR.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13:-

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. Income at Rs. Nil declaring in return of income was filed on 22.12.2012 for the AY 2012-13. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection) followed by serving of statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) upon the assessee for submissions of requisite documents. But there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. On perusal of records, the ld. AO found that sum of Rs. 5,42,100/- and Rs. 1,04,79,000/- totalling to Rs.1,10,21,100/- were credited/received in the books of account of the assessee from different parties. The ld. AO issued notice u/s. 131 of the Act to the shareholders and directors of the assessee company for verification of said transaction, but there were no compliances. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of share capital and share premium & security premium received by the assessee company. He accordingly completed assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act making addition u/s. 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and security premium totalling to Rs.1,10,20,000/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) only challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,10,20,000/-. During the appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) issued notice of hearing thrice on 25.07.2018, 20.08.2018 and finally on 29.08.2018. But on such appointed dates neither any one attended nor any submission in support of its claim/grounds was filed before him. The assessee remained absent on the said dates of hearing. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) dismissing the appeal of assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,10,20,000/-. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee had made no further efforts to file any other documentary evidence or paper book and written submissions in support of its claim.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities and prayed for confirming the order of ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material placed on record before us. The assessee has challenged the finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,10,20,000/- by the ld.AO for unexplained cash credits of share capital and share premium received during the year. We notice that the assessee company had offered Nil income for the AY 2012-13. The assessee company has been able to procure share capital at Rs. 5,41,000/- and share premium on this share capital at Rs. 1,04,79,000/- totalling to Rs.1,10,21,110/- It certainly creates doubt about the genuineness of the alleged transaction as to how such company with no asset base and poor financials has been able to procure share capital/share premium totalling to Rs.1,10,20,000/-. When the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny nobody has appeared either before the ld.AO, ld. CIT(A) even before us. The assessee failed to produce the alleged parties who had subscribed to the equity shares of the assessee company. The assessee was asked to explain the cash credits received by it during the year. The assessee failed to file necessary details to explain the source of alleged cash credit and also unable to prove identity, creditworthiness of the cash creditors as well as genuineness of the transaction. The assessee company has miserably failed to explain the source of alleged cash credit. If the assessee had sufficient details to explain the alleged sum, it could have certainly filed those details at any stage. Consistently escaping from appearing/producing the alleged parties before the ld. AO and the appellate 4. M/s. JSM Properties P.Ltd