SHAKTIMAN CEMENT AND PACKAGING INDUSTRIES LTD.,YAMUNANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, PANCHKULA

3rd April,2025 was the 36th occasion when these appeals were listed for hearing. But inspite of service of notice, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of the record would indicate that earlier Shri Ajay Jain, Chartered Accountant was the counsel of the assessee. He was present in the Court and we enquired from him. He submitted that he has withdrawn his Power of Attorney and he has no instructions. He further pointed out that whereabouts of the Directors of the assessee company is not known at present, to the Department as well as to him.

Compelled with this situation, he withdrew his Power of Attorney. The Tribunal has affected the service on the address given by the assessee in Form No. 36 in both the years. Therefore, under the compelling circumstances, we have concluded the hearing with the assistance of ld. CIT DR. A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 3

The facts on all vital points are common in both the years, therefore, for the facility of reference, we are taking the facts from assessment year 2012-13 but all important facts will be taken note simultaneously. It emerges out from the record that assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 30.09.2012 and 29.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.2,10,950/- and ‘nil’ in assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 respectively. In assessment year 2012-13, assessment was reopened by issuing of notice under Section 148 whereas in assessment year 2014-15, scrutiny assessment was taken place. A perusal of the record would indicate that in assessment year 2012-13, the share capital was increased by a sum of Rs.57,80,000/-.

The Commissioner has gone through the record carefully and formed an opinion that while accepting the share application money alongwith premium, AO has not A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 4 carried out any investigation, rather it emerges out that assessment order was passed on 29.12.2016 and assessee has submitted details on 16.12.2016. There was no occasion for the AO to conduct an enquiry on the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, he took action under Section 263 in both the years and set aside both the assessment orders.

With the assistance of ld. CIT DR, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee has received share application money alongwith share premium. In assessment year 2012-13, the detail of share application has been noticed by the AO but AO could not carry out the enquiry as contemplated under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. In other words, it was practically not possible for him to verify identity of the share applicants, their credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction because some of the share applicants were from Kanpur, Shahjahanpur (UP), Rampur (District Pilibhit) etc.

The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal and did not submit any details in support of its appeals. After going through the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 5 Act, we do not find any error. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

In the result, both appeals are dismissed.