M/S. BABA BHOOTNATH COMMEX PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making addition of Rs.1,23,20,000/- under sec. 68 without properly appreciating the facts and evidences filed and Summarily rejecting the contentions of the assessee by relying on the judgement in the case of CIT vs. Nipun Builders Pvt. Ltd (2013) 30 taxmann 292 (Delhi), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) and Raj Mandir Estates Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT, Kolkata (Calcutta HC) when the facts of the said case were quite different from the case in hand. 2 For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld AO whereas the assessment itself bad in law since the notice u/s 145(2) was not served within six months from the end of the year in which the return was filed.

For that the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made u/s 68 merely for the reason that the summons u/s 131 were remained un-complied with whereas in fact no summons u/s 131 were issued to the share applicants.

For that the Ld. CITA) erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O which was passed in haste without providing the appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard.

For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal before the hearing of the appeal.”

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that, in this case, the addition has been made on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction. He further brought to our attention to the relevant paras of the assessment order to submit that though, the assessee had furnished all the required documents but the Assessing Officer insisted for the personal appearance of the director of the assessee-company. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the evidences furnished by the assessee rather made the impugned addition for non-appearance of the director of the assessee-company.