M/S. MEGAPIX ENCLAVE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 14(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

1. This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dt. 25-10-2016 passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’] by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [ in short, hereafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata.

When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of assessee. A perusal of file shows that notice of hearing was sent I, therefore, deem it 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:-

That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is bad in law and on facts of the case.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business/investment in shares & securities. Income at Rs. 1890/- declaring in return of income was filed on 24.09.2012 for the AY 2012-13. Later on the said return was revised on 08.09.2013 showing income at Rs. 1890/-. 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. In response to which, the ld.AR of the assessee company appeared from time to time. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to frame assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. On examination of returns and books of account of the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee company was incorporated on 28.12.2011. The ld. AO found that during the year paid up share capital is Rs.2,57,00,000/- and security premium at Rs. 29,94,00,000/- totalling to Rs.32,51,00,000/- credited/received in the books of account of the assessee from different 2. AY 2012-13 M/s. Megapix Enclave P.Ltd. parties. The ld. AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, details of which is available at page-2 of the AO’s order. The ld. AO found that there was no compliance to these notices issued to the parties in respect of serial nos. 1 to 3 and in respect of remaining parties the notices were undelivered. 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. 32, 51,00,000/- and also disallowed Rs. 22,670/- u/s. 14A of the I.T Act, 1961 and Rs.1,303/- u/s. 115JB.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) only challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 32,51,10,000/-. During the appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) issued notice of hearing twice on 14.06.2016 and 29.08.2016. But both the notices returned back by postal authority with the comment Not known dt. 18.06.2016/03.09.2016 and assessee remained absent on both the 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. 32,51,00,000/-. 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. 32,51,00,000/- by the ld.AO for unexplained cash credits of share capital and security premium received during the year. We notice that the assessee company incorporated on 28.12.2011 and had offered meagre income of Rs. 1890/- for the AY 2012-13. The assessee company has been able to procure share capital at Rs. 2,57,00,000/- and security premium on this share capital at Rs. 29,94,00,000/- totalling to Rs.32,51,00,000/-. It certainly creates doubt about the genuineness of the alleged transaction as to how a new company with no asset has been able to procure share premium of Rs. 29.94 cr. and share capital of Rs. 2.57 cr. The company having this magnitude of share capital and share/security premium must be having proper business set up. Statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee and when the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny the assessee’s authorised representative time to time appeared before the ld.AO. But the assessee failed to produce the alleged 8 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 authority(ld.CIT-A) indicates that the assessee has no plausible explanation to explain the source of alleged sum of share capital and security premium and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 of the Act have rightly been invoked by ld. AO and alleged sum is the unaccounted income of assessee, which has been routed in the books through bogus/accommodation entry in the form of share capital and security premium. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.32,51,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.