HYGIEA BIOGENICS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2015-16 is directed against the I.T.A. No.: 145/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hygiea Biogenics (P) Ltd. order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-24, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 28.11.2019 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017.

The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “

We have heard ld. D/R and carefully perused the records placed before us.

As regards ground no. 1 for the disallowance of loss incurred on sale of land at Rs. 1,82,90,217/-, we observe that the assessee sold a land in June, 2014 at Rs. 4,18,39,960/- and the said land was claimed to be purchased in October, 2013 at Rs. 6,01,30,177/-. Before both the lower authorities when the assessee was asked to furnish the details of the proof of purchase of land and the source of purchases, the assessee failed to file any such document. Since the primary onus is on the appellant company to prove the claim of alleged loss, we find that the assessee failed to furnish any such document in spite of being provided numerous opportunities. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that since the assessee has no material to place before us, ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the view taken by ld. AO denying the claim of loss on sale of land at Rs. 1,82,90,217/-. We, thus, fail to I.T.A. No.: 145/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hygiea Biogenics (P) Ltd. find any infirmity in the detailed finding of ld. CIT(A). Thus, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

As regards ground no. 2 which relates to the addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, we find that the assessee received loan of Rs. 58,77,000/- from two concerns namely (a) Aristocrat Dealer Pvt. Ltd. and (b) Snehsil Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was asked to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. But the assessee failed to furnish any such documentary evidence in the form of confirmation letters, bank statement, identity details, income tax returns. Even the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to the alleged cash creditors were returned unserved. Ld. CIT(A), after examining the issue in detail and after considering the ratios laid down by various decisions of Tribunals including the one of Coordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd. vs. Department in order dated 18.08.2016 has rightly held that since the assessee failed to prove any of the three limbs required to be complied to by the assessee for explaining the cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, the addition has rightly been made by ld. AO.

We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, find that the assessee has no documentary evidence whatsoever to explain the source of cash credit of Rs. 58,77,000/- and, therefore, ld. AO has rightly invoked the provision of Section 68 of the Act. Thus, no interference is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.