M/S METROL RETAILS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-14(3), KOLKATA

None appeared on behalf of the assesse at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment was filed as the notice was returned unserved . Therefore we are deciding the appeal ex-parte after hearing the ld DR and after considering the merits of the case.

The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal challenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We observe from the order of AO that the assesse was largely non compliant in the matter of filing the requisite details sought by the AO. So much so that the assesse did not appear at all in the appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority. In other words in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared to present its case on merit. During the course of hearing, the Departmental Representative brought to our notice that the directors of these companies were not traceable despite best effort by the department and all these companies are shell companies and part of scam operated by unscrupulous elements on whom the law could not lay its hands. Under these circumstances, we are proceedings to decide and dispose off the appeal ex-parte.

After hearing Ld. D.R and after of the perusal of various grounds of appeal reveals we note that the additions as made by the AO was on the account of introduction of unexplained Share capital/Share Premium which could not be verified by both the authorities below. We note that the assesse was not cooperative before the AO whereas before the ldCIT(A) the assesse did not appear at all. We further note that both the authorities below have given findings on these additions that this introduction of money remained unexplained and the investigation carried out by the revenue points to the deeper conspiracy to routing the unaccounted money in the form of share capital/share premium. We further observe that the assessee has not filed any evidences/confirmations/produce books of accounts before us to take a contrary view. Under this circumstance, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Metrol Retails Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.