ONWARD VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to provide any evidence to counter the findings of the lower authorities regarding accommodation entries. The appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-cooperation.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear for hearings before the ITAT and the CIT(A), nor did it comply with summons from the AO. The lower authorities found the assessee to be a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of share capital and premium from shell companies.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries and if the lower authorities' findings are supported by evidence, given the assessee's non-appearance.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]
Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘ Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 19.07.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.
At the time of hearing neither assessee nor its authorized representative appeared to attend the hearing nor any application seeking adjournment was filed by the assessee. Therefore we are disposing of the appeal of the assessee on merits after hearing the ld DR.
Onward Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.
After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the material on record including the orders passed by the lower authorities, we note that the appeal was decided ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee did not appear on various dates fixed by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing. We even note that the summons issued by the AO were not complied with during the assessment proceedings. Under these circumstances , we are of the belief that the assesse is not interested in prosecuting its appeal and is being decided on the basis of material available before us. The ld DR while referring to the assessment and appellate order, submitted that the assesse is beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of share capital and share premium operated by shell companies. The ld. DR argued that even before the ld CIT(A) the assesse has not cooperated by attending the appeal which has resulted into ex-parte decision by ld CIT(A) on the basis of available records before him. We observe that the both the authorities below have given findings that the assesse is beneficiaries of accommodation entries from shell companies. We also observe that apparently on the basis of records before us the assesse has taken accommodation entries from various shell companies and there is no materials/evidences before us to take a contrary view on the issue. Therefore in absence of any evidences to the contrary before we are inclined to uphold the order of ld CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th October, 2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026