SAHYOG VANIJYA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-11(4), KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 25.05.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13.

At the outset, the Registry informed that there is a delay of 428 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of such delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay in the appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring total loss of Rs.591/- . On information received from ITO, (Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata that the Sahyog Vanijya Pvt. Ltd assessee company had received Rs.20,00,000/- during the F.Y 2011-12 routed through the bank account of M/s Ram Enterprises, a proprietorship concern. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued to the proprietorship concern to submit details of bank, source of income, audited balance sheet etc., however, there was no compliance to the said notice. Later, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 and in response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.12291. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee to furnish necessary details to prove the source. Further, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had also received Rs.15 lakhs from Rishikesh Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. routed through the account of the said M/s Sri Ram Enterprises. As the assessee made no compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.15,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained income assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.15,09,120/-: 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where the ld. CIT(A) passed an order by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.