PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 3745/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) ITA No. 3746/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 3747/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ITA No. 3749/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA No. 3750/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pearl Vision Pvt Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Flat No. 909, Kailash Commissioner of Income Building, tax. KG Marg, New Delhi Central Circle-13, New PAN: AADCP2919D Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by: Ms Sushma Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 11/11/2019

O R D E R PER Bench 1. These are the bunch of appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-25, New Delhi dated 14.03.2016. The facts relating to all these years are identical. Therefore, those are disposed off by this common order. These are the appeals of the assessee where the orders have been passed by the ld AO with respect to a. addition on account of issue of share capital to the allegedly bogus non existing companies,

b. purchases of software from the companies who are allegedly not found to be capable of supplying the software to the assessee, c. Claim of depreciation and expenses from allegedly non- existing bogus companies and non-production of books of accounts. Further, these additions were allegedly made after post search inquiries, further inquiries during assessment proceedings also. Elaborate facts are recorded in the assessment order with respect to allegation of tax evasion and consequent non- cooperation by assessee. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA NO. 3745/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2006-07:- “1. That an appeal against the impugned order of the learned A.O. was filed before CIT [Appeals] on 26th April 2013 but CIT [Appeals] has passed an Ex-Parte order by confirming the demand of Ld. A.O. on 14.03..2016 without taking into consideration the reasons due to which the appellant could not provide the necessary documents and evidence and could not attend the hearings before the CIT [Appeals]. Some of the reasons are provided below:- [a] That Mr. Anand Tiwari, one of the Directors of the Appellant Company has been suffering from a chronic liver disease for the past 4-5 years. On account of his severe illness he has been admitted/treated in various hospitals in India as well as abroad on innumerable occasions and has been bed-ridden for most of the time during these years. The medical record of Mr. Anand Tiwari is voluminous and the same can be filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal, if so directed. On account of his severe medical condition, Mr. Anand Tiwari has been completely incapacitated in dealing with the affairs of the company in any manner whatsoever. In any event, the affairs of the company, particularly financial and taxation related matters of the company were being

looked after by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other Director of the company, from the very inception. (b) That Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other director of the appellant company, was himself suffering from various illnesses and had also been incarcerated during the relevant time. Due to financial crisis, the company had started making defaults in paying installments to various banks and also in fulfilling other financial obligation. Consequently, the banks had filed false & frivolous complaints with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The C.B.I. officials had started making inquiries not only from the directors, but also from the family/staff members etc. The C.B.I. officials had also started calling not only the directors, but also the staff members, to their office. The C.B.I. officials had started making visits to the office of the company. Mr. P.K. Tiwari was incarcerated in connection with the CBI cases from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and from September 2014 to March 2015. The Appellant Company was going through severe financial crunch during all these years, due to which most of the company staff left the company as their salaries could not be paid. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Tiwari could not devote time to pursue the appeals on account of the aforementioned reasons. On account of his advance age, frequent incarceration and the extra ordinary financial crises and other adverse conditions, Mr. P.K. Tiwari was under acute depression and could not therefore, focus on the matter. (c) That the senior officials of the company in finance department left the company after committing serious acts of omissions and commission. It is learnt that such officials had been involved in various irregularities due to which the company and its present directors have suffered the extra ordinary circumstances and trauma. On account of such grave situation, the matter before the respondent could not be pursued in a proper manner. (d) That the authorized representative, representing the appellant company before the respondent extracted huge money from the appellant but did not properly put forward the case before the respondent. They should at Page | 3

least have represented the difficulties being faced by the company and ought to have defended the appellant to the best of their capacity on the basis of records which were within their possession and knowledge. But most unfortunately they failed to perform their professional duty, resulting in passing of the impugned order. (e) That the respondent ought to have considered the aforementioned bona fide reasons and extra ordinary circumstances and should have granted further time to the appellant to satisfy the respondent on the aspect that the demand raised by the Ld. A.O. was illegal and unwarranted. The ex-parte order passed by the respondent is unwarranted and has resulted in extreme prejudice to the appellant. (f) That the appellant is entitled for hearing instead of the case being decided unheard. (g) That the failure on part of the appellant in pursuing its appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was occasioned due to reasons mentioned above. (h) That the extra-ordinary adverse situation suffered by the appellant entitles it for a fair hearing before this Tribunal so that the case can be decided on merits instead of being thrown out on account of non representation. (i) The company did everything within its power by engaging professionals to represent it before the respondent but the said professionals failed to perform their duty by not advising the company in the matter and by not representing it in bona-fide manner. (j) That the company sought a number of adjournments and tried to present its case. (k) That due to lack of funds and non availability of documents as explained above, the company, inspite of taking many adjournments, was not able to defend its case before CIT (Appeals). (l) That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the Company to present its case and to justify the grounds for quashing the impugned order of the learned A.O. [m) That the impugned order, confirming the order of A.O., was passed by the CIT [Appeals) without considering Page | 4

the grounds provided by the Company or the documents or evidences to be provided on part of the Company and the order was passed ex parte. (n) That the Company has valid grounds and will be able to establish that the impugned order passed by the learned A.O. was bad in law and was based only on presumptions, if a reasonable opportunity is provided to the company. (o) That the grounds provided by the company in the appeal before the CIT [Appeals) which were not considered by it before confirming the impugned order of learned A.O. are provided below. 2. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013, passed by the Ld. A.O. U/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, is bad in law. 3. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, deserves to be quashed, because natural justice has been denied by the Ld. A.O. to the assessee. 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not taking into consideration the assessee's reply, vide letter dated 15.03.2013[filed on 18.03.2013). 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in altogether ignoring the assessee's reply, vide Receipt dated 15.03.2013(Friday), Which had been filed on Dak counter Vide Receipt dated 18.03.2013(Monday). 6. That the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed because there are contradictions in the stand taken by the Ld. A.O., e.g. the Ld. A.O. has failed to explain (a) as to why he is accepting the sales/turnover appearing in the P/L Account, when according to him there were on plant & machinery and other fixed assets; and (b) as to why he is making addition on account of unexplained investment in the plant & machinery, when according to him there were no plant & machinery. 7. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 1,92,06,750/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation on the plant & machinery. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable.

The appellant craves leave to raise additional ground[s] of appeal to alter/modify the ground(s] of appeal, and/or to withdraw the ground[s) of appeal, either prior to or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA NO. 3746/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. That an appeal against the impugned order of the learned A.O. was filed before CIT [Appeals] on 26th April 2013 but CIT [Appeals] has passed an Ex-Parte order by confirming the demand of Ld. A.O. on 14.03..2016 without taking into consideration the reasons due to which the appellant could not provide the necessary documents and evidence and could not attend the hearings before the CIT [Appeals]. Some of the reasons are provided below:- [a] That Mr. Anand Tiwari, one of the Directors of the Appellant Company has been suffering from a chronic liver disease for the past 4-5 years. On account of his severe illness he has been admitted/treated in various hospitals in India as well as abroad on innumerable occasions and has been bed-ridden for most of the time during these years. The medical record of Mr. Anand Tiwari is voluminous and the same can be filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal, if so directed. On account of his severe medical condition, Mr. Anand Tiwari has been completely incapacitated in dealing with the affairs of the company in any manner whatsoever. In any event, the affairs of the company, particularly financial and taxation related matters of the company were being looked after by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other Director of the company, from the very inception. (b) That Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other director of the appellant company, was himself suffering from various illnesses and had also been incarcerated during the relevant time. Due to financial crisis, the company had started making defaults in paying installments to various banks and also in fulfilling other financial obligation. Consequently, the banks had filed false & frivolous complaints with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The C.B.I. officials had started making inquiries not only from the directors, but also from the family/staff members etc. The C.B.I. officials had also Page | 7

started calling not only the directors, but also the staff members, to their office. The C.B.I. officials had started making visits to the office of the company. Mr. P.K. Tiwari was incarcerated in connection with the CBI cases from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and from September 2014 to March 2015. The Appellant Company was going through severe financial crunch during all these years, due to which most of the company staff left the company as their salaries could not be paid. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Tiwari could not devote time to pursue the appeals on account of the aforementioned reasons. On account of his advance age, frequent incarceration and the extra ordinary financial crises and other adverse conditions, Mr. P.K. Tiwari was under acute depression and could not therefore, focus on the matter. (c) That the senior officials of the company in finance department left the company after committing serious acts of omissions and commission. It is learnt that such officials had been involved in various irregularities due to which the company and its present directors have suffered the extra ordinary circumstances and trauma. On account of such grave situation, the matter before the respondent could not be pursued in a proper manner. (d) That the authorized representative, representing the appellant company before the respondent extracted huge money from the appellant but did not properly put forward the case before the respondent. They should at least have represented the difficulties being faced by the company and ought to have defended the appellant to the best of their capacity on the basis of records which were within their possession and knowledge. But most unfortunately they failed to perform their professional duty, resulting in passing of the impugned order. (e) That the respondent ought to have considered the aforementioned bona fide reasons and extra ordinary circumstances and should have granted further time to the appellant to satisfy the respondent on the aspect that the demand raised by the Ld. A.O. was illegal and unwarranted. The ex-parte order passed by the Page | 8

respondent is unwarranted and has resulted in extreme prejudice to the appellant. (f) That the appellant is entitled for hearing instead of the case being decided unheard. (g) That the failure on part of the appellant in pursuing its appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was occasioned due to reasons mentioned above. (h) That the extra-ordinary adverse situation suffered by the appellant entitles it for a fair hearing before this Tribunal so that the case can be decided on merits instead of being thrown out on account of non representation. (i) The company did everything within its power by engaging professionals to represent it before the respondent but the said professionals failed to perform their duty by not advising the company in the matter and by not representing it in bona-fide manner. (j) That the company sought a number of adjournments and tried to present its case. (k) That due to lack of funds and non availability of documents as explained above, the company, inspite of taking many adjournments, was not able to defend its case before CIT (Appeals). (l) That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the Company to present its case and to justify the grounds for quashing the impugned order of the learned A.O. [m) That the impugned order, confirming the order of A.O., was passed by the CIT [Appeals) without considering the grounds provided by the Company or the documents or evidences to be provided on part of the Company and the order was passed ex parte. (n) That the Company has valid grounds and will be able to establish that the impugned order passed by the learned A.O. was bad in law and was based only on presumptions, if a reasonable opportunity is provided to the company. (o) That the grounds provided by the company in the appeal before the CIT [Appeals) which were not considered by it before confirming the impugned order of learned A.O. are provided below. Page | 9

account of investment in the property bearing Plot NO. 13, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida, thereby treating the said amount as unexplained investment. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. The investment in the said property were duly accounted for/ recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 11. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,28,65,19,625/-, on account of investment in the plant & machinery, thereby treating the same as unexplained investment. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. The investment in the said property were duly accounted for/ recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 1,99,05,04,593/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That the income tax liability created at Rs. 66,78,00,361/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 14. That the ld AO has erred in not giving full credit of prepaid taxes. 15. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging interest u/s 234B, Without prejudice, the interest charged is highly excessive. That the reasonable opportunity be provided to the Company for evidencing and establishing the above mentioned grounds which it could not do before the CIT [Appeals]. The appellant craves leave to raise additional ground[s] of appeal to alter/modify the ground(s] of appeal, and/or to withdraw the ground[s) of appeal, either prior to or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA NO. 3747/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. That an appeal against the impugned order of the learned A.O. was filed before CIT [Appeals] on 26th April 2013 but CIT [Appeals] has passed an Ex-Parte order by confirming the demand of Ld. A.O. on 14.03..2016 without taking into consideration the reasons due to which the appellant could not provide the necessary documents and evidence and could Page | 11

not attend the hearings before the CIT [Appeals]. Some of the reasons are provided below:- [a] That Mr. Anand Tiwari, one of the Directors of the Appellant Company has been suffering from a chronic liver disease for the past 4-5 years. On account of his severe illness he has been admitted/treated in various hospitals in India as well as abroad on innumerable occasions and has been bed-ridden for most of the time during these years. The medical record of Mr. Anand Tiwari is voluminous and the same can be filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal, if so directed. On account of his severe medical condition, Mr. Anand Tiwari has been completely incapacitated in dealing with the affairs of the company in any manner whatsoever. In any event, the affairs of the company, particularly financial and taxation related matters of the company were being looked after by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other Director of the company, from the very inception. (b) That Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other director of the appellant company, was himself suffering from various illnesses and had also been incarcerated during the relevant time. Due to financial crisis, the company had started making defaults in paying installments to various banks and also in fulfilling other financial obligation. Consequently, the banks had filed false & frivolous complaints with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The C.B.I. officials had started making inquiries not only from the directors, but also from the family/staff members etc. The C.B.I. officials had also started calling not only the directors, but also the staff members, to their office. The C.B.I. officials had started making visits to the office of the company. Mr. P.K. Tiwari was incarcerated in connection with the CBI cases from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and from September 2014 to March 2015. The Appellant Company was going through severe financial crunch during all these years, due to which most of the company staff left the company as their salaries could not be paid. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Tiwari could not devote time to pursue the appeals on account of the aforementioned reasons. On account of his advance age, frequent incarceration and the extra ordinary financial crises and other adverse conditions, Mr. P.K. Page | 12

Tiwari was under acute depression and could not therefore, focus on the matter. (c) That the senior officials of the company in finance department left the company after committing serious acts of omissions and commission. It is learnt that such officials had been involved in various irregularities due to which the company and its present directors have suffered the extra ordinary circumstances and trauma. On account of such grave situation, the matter before the respondent could not be pursued in a proper manner. (d) That the authorized representative, representing the appellant company before the respondent extracted huge money from the appellant but did not properly put forward the case before the respondent. They should at least have represented the difficulties being faced by the company and ought to have defended the appellant to the best of their capacity on the basis of records which were within their possession and knowledge. But most unfortunately they failed to perform their professional duty, resulting in passing of the impugned order. (e) That the respondent ought to have considered the aforementioned bona fide reasons and extra ordinary circumstances and should have granted further time to the appellant to satisfy the respondent on the aspect that the demand raised by the Ld. A.O. was illegal and unwarranted. The ex-parte order passed by the respondent is unwarranted and has resulted in extreme prejudice to the appellant. (f) That the appellant is entitled for hearing instead of the case being decided unheard. (g) That the failure on part of the appellant in pursuing its appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was occasioned due to reasons mentioned above. (h) That the extra-ordinary adverse situation suffered by the appellant entitles it for a fair hearing before this Tribunal so that the case can be decided on merits instead of being thrown out on account of non representation.

(i) The company did everything within its power by engaging professionals to represent it before the respondent but the said professionals failed to perform their duty by not advising the company in the matter and by not representing it in bona-fide manner. (j) That the company sought a number of adjournments and tried to present its case. (k) That due to lack of funds and non availability of documents as explained above, the company, inspite of taking many adjournments, was not able to defend its case before CIT (Appeals). (l) That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the Company to present its case and to justify the grounds for quashing the impugned order of the learned A.O. [m) That the impugned order, confirming the order of A.O., was passed by the CIT [Appeals) without considering the grounds provided by the Company or the documents or evidences to be provided on part of the Company and the order was passed ex parte. (n) That the Company has valid grounds and will be able to establish that the impugned order passed by the learned A.O. was bad in law and was based only on presumptions, if a reasonable opportunity is provided to the company. (o) That the grounds provided by the company in the appeal before the CIT [Appeals) which were not considered by it before confirming the impugned order of learned A.O. are provided below. 2. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013, passed by the Ld. A.O. U/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, is bad in law. 3. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, deserves to be quashed, because natural justice has been denied by the Ld. A.O. to the assessee. 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not taking into consideration the assessee's reply, vide letter dated 15.03.2013[filed on 18.03.2013). 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in altogether ignoring the assessee's reply, vide Receipt dated 15.03.2013(Friday), Which had been filed on Dak counter Vide Receipt dated 18.03.2013(Monday). Page | 14

The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. The investment in the said property were duly accounted for/recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 38,70,33,835/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses of the earlier years. 14. That the income tax liability created at Rs. 13,15,52,801/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 15. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in not giving full credit of prepaid taxes. 16. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging interest u/s 234A. Without prejudice, the interest charged is highly excessive. 17. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging interest u/s 234B, Without prejudice, the interest charged is highly excessive. That the reasonable opportunity be provided to the Company for evidencing and establishing the above mentioned grounds which it could not do before the CIT (Appeals). The appellant craves leave to raise additional ground(s) of appeal to alter/modify the ground(s) of appeal, and/or to withdraw the ground(s) of appeal, either prior to or during the course of appellate proceedings. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA NO. 3747/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. That an appeal against the impugned order of the learned A.O. was filed before CIT [Appeals] on 26th April 2013 but CIT [Appeals] has passed an Ex-Parte order by confirming the demand of Ld. A.O. on 14.03..2016 without taking into consideration the reasons due to which the appellant could not provide the necessary documents and evidence and could not attend the hearings before the CIT [Appeals]. Some of the reasons are provided below:- [a] That Mr. Anand Tiwari, one of the Directors of the Appellant Company has been suffering from a chronic liver disease for the past 4-5 years. On account of his severe illness he has been admitted/treated in various Page | 16

hospitals in India as well as abroad on innumerable occasions and has been bed-ridden for most of the time during these years. The medical record of Mr. Anand Tiwari is voluminous and the same can be filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal, if so directed. On account of his severe medical condition, Mr. Anand Tiwari has been completely incapacitated in dealing with the affairs of the company in any manner whatsoever. In any event, the affairs of the company, particularly financial and taxation related matters of the company were being looked after by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other Director of the company, from the very inception. (b) That Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other director of the appellant company, was himself suffering from various illnesses and had also been incarcerated during the relevant time. Due to financial crisis, the company had started making defaults in paying installments to various banks and also in fulfilling other financial obligation. Consequently, the banks had filed false & frivolous complaints with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The C.B.I. officials had started making inquiries not only from the directors, but also from the family/staff members etc. The C.B.I. officials had also started calling not only the directors, but also the staff members, to their office. The C.B.I. officials had started making visits to the office of the company. Mr. P.K. Tiwari was incarcerated in connection with the CBI cases from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and from September 2014 to March 2015. The Appellant Company was going through severe financial crunch during all these years, due to which most of the company staff left the company as their salaries could not be paid. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Tiwari could not devote time to pursue the appeals on account of the aforementioned reasons. On account of his advance age, frequent incarceration and the extra ordinary financial crises and other adverse conditions, Mr. P.K. Tiwari was under acute depression and could not therefore, focus on the matter. (c) That the senior officials of the company in finance department left the company after committing serious acts of omissions and commission. It is learnt that such officials had been involved in various irregularities due Page | 17

to which the company and its present directors have suffered the extra ordinary circumstances and trauma. On account of such grave situation, the matter before the respondent could not be pursued in a proper manner. (d) That the authorized representative, representing the appellant company before the respondent extracted huge money from the appellant but did not properly put forward the case before the respondent. They should at least have represented the difficulties being faced by the company and ought to have defended the appellant to the best of their capacity on the basis of records which were within their possession and knowledge. But most unfortunately they failed to perform their professional duty, resulting in passing of the impugned order. (e) That the respondent ought to have considered the aforementioned bona fide reasons and extra ordinary circumstances and should have granted further time to the appellant to satisfy the respondent on the aspect that the demand raised by the Ld. A.O. was illegal and unwarranted. The ex-parte order passed by the respondent is unwarranted and has resulted in extreme prejudice to the appellant. (f) That the appellant is entitled for hearing instead of the case being decided unheard. (g) That the failure on part of the appellant in pursuing its appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was occasioned due to reasons mentioned above. (h) That the extra-ordinary adverse situation suffered by the appellant entitles it for a fair hearing before this Tribunal so that the case can be decided on merits instead of being thrown out on account of non representation. (i) The company did everything within its power by engaging professionals to represent it before the respondent but the said professionals failed to perform their duty by not advising the company in the matter and by not representing it in bona-fide manner. (j) That the company sought a number of adjournments and tried to present its case. Page | 18

(k) That due to lack of funds and non availability of documents as explained above, the company, inspite of taking many adjournments, was not able to defend its case before CIT (Appeals). (l) That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the Company to present its case and to justify the grounds for quashing the impugned order of the learned A.O. [m) That the impugned order, confirming the order of A.O., was passed by the CIT [Appeals) without considering the grounds provided by the Company or the documents or evidences to be provided on part of the Company and the order was passed ex parte. (n) That the Company has valid grounds and will be able to establish that the impugned order passed by the learned A.O. was bad in law and was based only on presumptions, if a reasonable opportunity is provided to the company. (o) That the grounds provided by the company in the appeal before the CIT [Appeals) which were not considered by it before confirming the impugned order of learned A.O. are provided below. 2. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013, passed by the Ld. A.O. U/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, is bad in law. 3. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, deserves to be quashed, because natural justice has been denied by the Ld. A.O. to the assessee. 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not taking into consideration the assessee's reply, vide letter dated 15.03.2013[filed on 18.03.2013). 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in altogether ignoring the assessee's reply, vide Receipt dated 15.03.2013(Friday), Which had been filed on Dak counter Vide Receipt dated 18.03.2013(Monday). 6. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in ignoring the total loss of Rs. 3,96,86,668/- declared by the assessee vide it's return of income, while computing the total income assessed. 7. That the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed because there are contradictions in the stand taken by the Ld. A.O., e.g. the Ld. A.O. has failed to explain (a) as to why Page | 19

he is accepting the sales/turnover appearing in the P/L Account, when according to him there were on plant & machinery and other fixed assets; and [b) as to why he is making addition on account of unexplained investment in the plant & machinery, when according to him there were no plant & machinery. 8. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 50,19,37,887/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation on the plant & machinery. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 7,37,98,394/- (difference between the total depreciation claimed at Rs, 57,75,36,281/- and the depreciation separately disallowed at Rs.50,19,37,887/-) on account of depreciation claimed for want of details. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 10. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 55,00,000/-, on account of alleged amount received from M/s Laxmi Exim Pvt. Ltd. , thereby treating the same as unexplained credit/share capital and share application money. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 11. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,31,47,81,412/-, on account of investment in Plant & Machinery, thereby treating the same as unexplained investment. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. The investment in the said property were duly accounted for/recorded in the books of accounts and were reflected in the balance sheet. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 1,89,60,17,693/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses of the earlier years.

taxation related matters of the company were being looked after by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other Director of the company, from the very inception. (b) That Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the other director of the appellant company, was himself suffering from various illnesses and had also been incarcerated during the relevant time. Due to financial crisis, the company had started making defaults in paying installments to various banks and also in fulfilling other financial obligation. Consequently, the banks had filed false & frivolous complaints with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The C.B.I. officials had started making inquiries not only from the directors, but also from the family/staff members etc. The C.B.I. officials had also started calling not only the directors, but also the staff members, to their office. The C.B.I. officials had started making visits to the office of the company. Mr. P.K. Tiwari was incarcerated in connection with the CBI cases from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and from September 2014 to March 2015. The Appellant Company was going through severe financial crunch during all these years, due to which most of the company staff left the company as their salaries could not be paid. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Tiwari could not devote time to pursue the appeals on account of the aforementioned reasons. On account of his advance age, frequent incarceration and the extra ordinary financial crises and other adverse conditions, Mr. P.K. Tiwari was under acute depression and could not therefore, focus on the matter. (c) That the senior officials of the company in finance department left the company after committing serious acts of omissions and commission. It is learnt that such officials had been involved in various irregularities due to which the company and its present directors have suffered the extra ordinary circumstances and trauma. On account of such grave situation, the matter before the respondent could not be pursued in a proper manner. (d) That the authorized representative, representing the appellant company before the respondent extracted huge money from the appellant but did not properly put Page | 22

forward the case before the respondent. They should at least have represented the difficulties being faced by the company and ought to have defended the appellant to the best of their capacity on the basis of records which were within their possession and knowledge. But most unfortunately they failed to perform their professional duty, resulting in passing of the impugned order. (e) That the respondent ought to have considered the aforementioned bona fide reasons and extra ordinary circumstances and should have granted further time to the appellant to satisfy the respondent on the aspect that the demand raised by the Ld. A.O. was illegal and unwarranted. The ex-parte order passed by the respondent is unwarranted and has resulted in extreme prejudice to the appellant. (f) That the appellant is entitled for hearing instead of the case being decided unheard. (g) That the failure on part of the appellant in pursuing its appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was occasioned due to reasons mentioned above. (h) That the extra-ordinary adverse situation suffered by the appellant entitles it for a fair hearing before this Tribunal so that the case can be decided on merits instead of being thrown out on account of non representation. (i) The company did everything within its power by engaging professionals to represent it before the respondent but the said professionals failed to perform their duty by not advising the company in the matter and by not representing it in bona-fide manner. (j) That the company sought a number of adjournments and tried to present its case. (k) That due to lack of funds and non availability of documents as explained above, the company, inspite of taking many adjournments, was not able to defend its case before CIT (Appeals). (l) That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the Company to present its case and to justify the grounds for quashing the impugned order of the learned A.O.

[m) That the impugned order, confirming the order of A.O., was passed by the CIT [Appeals) without considering the grounds provided by the Company or the documents or evidences to be provided on part of the Company and the order was passed ex parte. (n) That the Company has valid grounds and will be able to establish that the impugned order passed by the learned A.O. was bad in law and was based only on presumptions, if a reasonable opportunity is provided to the company. (o) That the grounds provided by the company in the appeal before the CIT [Appeals) which were not considered by it before confirming the impugned order of learned A.O. are provided below. 2. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013, passed by the Ld. A.O. U/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, is bad in law. 3. That the assessment order dated 18.03.2013 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A, deserves to be quashed, because natural justice has been denied by the Ld. A.O. to the assessee. 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not taking into consideration the assessee's reply, vide letter dated 15.03.2013[filed on 18.03.2013). 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in altogether ignoring the assessee's reply, vide Receipt dated 15.03.2013(Friday), Which had been filed on Dak counter Vide Receipt dated 18.03.2013(Monday). 6. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in ignoring the total loss of Rs. 3,96,86,668/- declared by the assessee vide it's return of income, while computing the total income assessed. 7. That the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed because there are contradictions in the stand taken by the Ld. A.O., e.g. the Ld. A.O. has failed to explain as to why he is accepting the sales/turnover appearing in the P/L Account, when according to him there were on plant & machinery and other fixed assets, when according to him there were no plant & machinery and other fixed assets. 8. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 43,01,62,904/-, on account of alleged bogus claim of depreciation on the plant & machinery. Page | 24

The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 7,35,83,016/- (difference between the total depreciation claimed at Rs, 50,37,45,920/- and the depreciation separately disallowed at Rs.43,01,62,904/-) on account of depreciation claimed for want of details. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 10. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 22,93,450/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D.. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 11. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 2,38,51,13,587(including opening stock of Rs. 29,63,97,855/-} being the expenditure other than depreciation claimed by the assessee in the P&L A/c, thereby treating the same as unexplained investment. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 12. That the total income assessed at Rs. 2,89,11,52,957/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 13. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in not allowing set off of losses of the earlier years. 14. That the income tax liability created at Rs.96,03,68,734/- is arbitrary, unjust, illegal & highly excessive. 15. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in not giving full credit of prepaid taxes. 16. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging interest u/s 234A. Without prejudice, the interest charged is highly excessive. 17. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging interest u/s 234B, Without prejudice, the interest charged is highly excessive.

That the reasonable opportunity be provided to the Company for evidencing and establishing the above mentioned grounds which it could not do before the CIT (Appeals). The appellant craves leave to raise additional ground(s) of appeal to alter/modify the ground(s) of appeal, and/or to withdraw the ground(s) of appeal, either prior to or during the course of appellate proceedings.”

in physical form. He further submitted that several equipment, fixed assets are given to field staff for usage, and therefore, they are not available at the premises searched. The AO noted that the company has purchased along with it group companies assets and equipment of more than Rs. 1400 crores and majority of them is software. During the course of search bills and invoices of Rs. 640.00 crores were found where purchase have been made by various companies. In the case of assessee, software of Rs. 38.31 crores was purchases. The ld AO investigated the suppliers and found that most of the companies did not have their own premises and no business activities were carried out. It was also found that all the suppliers of the software are bogus parties and they did not have any capability of producing the software purchase by the assessee. The ld AO further carried out enquiries from Singapore companies wherein, it was found that the companies never sold any software to the suppliers of the software to the assessee company. Further Mr. Anand Tewari was also confronted and examined by the ld assessee on the issue of purchase of software, issue of in house development of software by the suppliers companies. After the detailed enquiry the ld AO found that all the suppliers from whom assessee has purchased software are bogus and therefore, bogus depreciation claimed of Rs. 19206750/- was disallowed. 9. During the year the assessee received the share capital of Rs. 15.29 crores from various companies and individuals. The assessee was asked to proof the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction along with the necessary information. The assessee never produced those persons. The ld AO issued notice u/s 133(6) but all the investors and in most of

the cases either reply was not received or it has come back as unserved. Wherever the reply was received, they were without adequate proof. As most of the investors are based in Kolkata the Inspectors were deputed to find out the companies. The inspector’s report states that no such companies were found at the addresses. Such inspector’s report were part of the assessment order. Therefore, the ld AO made an addition of Rs. 15.29 crores on account of unexplained share capital. 10. Assessee received a loan of Rs. 8,39,80,000/- and assessee was asked to explain the creditworthiness, genuineness of the loan. Despite number of opportunities the assessee did not furnish any information the addition of Rs. 83980,000/- was made. 11. The assessee was found to have acquired a premises in Bandra(West), Mumbai for Rs. 3,67,50,000/-. Despite calling for the details of the source of the funds no such information was made available to the assessee and therefore, the ld AO made addition of the above amount. 12. During the search it was found that the assessee has purchased plant and machinery of Rs. 25,60,90,000/- from various companies which are found to be bogus. The assessee also did not file the bills of those assets and therefore, the above amount was considered as unexplained investment of them company. 13. Accordingly, against the return of income of Rs. 2,75,204/- the assessment of Rs. 549201954/- was made as per order dated 18.03.2013 u/s 144 read with Section 153A of the Act. 14. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as no information was supplied by the assessee before him. Thus the ld CIT (A) after giving a number of opportunities could not obtain any details

from the assessee. Thus, he did not have any other option but to confirm the addition. In para 7.12 the ld CIT(A) held that for a period of more than 2 years the assessee was provided many opportunities but every time assessee sought only adjournment and did not furnish any information. He referred to 28 opportunities granted to the assessee. The ld CIT(A) thereafter on the merits of the case decided all the grounds upholding the action of the ld AO. Therefore, the assessee aggrieved with the order of the ld AO has preferred an appeal before us. 15. Even before us, assessee did not appear or furnish either any request for adjournment or any written submission. In view of this, even we do not have any other option but to dispose of the appeal on the merits of the case. 16. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. She referred to the conduct of the assessee before the assessing officer, before the learned CIT – A. She also defended the order of the learned CIT – A in not admitting the additional evidences stating that such additional evidences were not produced before the assessing officer because of sufficient cause and therefore the CIT – A was justified in rejecting the same. Even otherwise he submitted that when learned CIT – A asked for remand report of AO, the assessee did not produce any details before the assessing officer. Even otherwise, she submitted that for the claim of the depreciation the assessee should have established ownership, use, cost of the assets which the assessee has failed to submit. Merely submitting a chart will not show eligibility for claim. With respect to the unsecured loan the assessee should have submitted the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders as well

as the genuineness of the receipt of loan which assessee has miserably failed to do so. With respect to the Investments , she submitted that assessee should have produced the Books of accounts as well as the vouchers and bills for the expenditure to show that they have been acquired from known sources. This has not been done by the assessee. Merely producing the audited balance sheet does not suffice for the allowance of the expenditure. She further submitted that there was a search pursuant to which the complete details were available about the tax evasion by assessee. All software purchases are conclusively proved as bogus. She further referred to the facts of the case to show that there was a search by Central bureau of investigation on the assessee company which itself shows that how the company was being run/ business conducted by the directors. In view of this she submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT – A in confirming the above addition. 17. Coming to the first ground of the appeal which is against the action of the ld CIT(A) for passing an ex parte order confirmed the order of the ld AO stating that the appellant could not remain present as one of the director was suffering chronic liver disease for the past 4 to 5 years. It was stated that another director Shri P. K. Tewari is also suffering from various ailments and was incarcerated. Due to financial crises the bank due were not paid and therefore, the CBI complain was made against him. He arrested from July 12 to October 2012 and September 2014 to March 2015. Therefore, ground No. 1 to 5 of the appeal are on principles of natural justice.

itself for the misdeed conducted by it. Hence, Ground no 1 to 6 are dismissed. 19. Ground No. 12-15 are general in nature hence, they are dismissed. 20. Ground No 7 is on the bogus claim of depreciation on the plant and machinery. The most of the purchase shows by the assessee are software for which the assessee has not produced any details about its ownership, functionary etc. the AO has proved conclusively with the suppliers are bogus. The issue is squarely covered against assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Chintels India Ltd Vs. DCIT 2017-TIOL- 1366-Hon'ble High Court-DEL-IT-wherein, bogus depreciation of software was disallowed of the ld AO was confirmed. The special leave petition filed before the ld Hon'ble Supreme Court is also dismissed in 2018-TIOL-16-SC-IT. The facts on that case are identical to the facts of the case before us. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld AO in disallowing the depreciation on the software. We confirm order of the ld CIT A . Accordingly, ground Nos. 7 of the appeal are dismissed. 21. Ground number 8 is with respect to the issue of share capital of INR 15.29 crores received by the assessee. Apparently during the year the assessee has received total share application money of INR 14.99 crores, share application money of INR 30 lakhs and unsecured loan of INR 8 3980000/–. The assessee was asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness of these depositors and genuineness of the transactions. The assessing officer issued enquiry letter under section 133 (6) to all the investors where from the companies the assessee has taken share capital no reply was received. The reply was received only from the director

and their family members however no proof of their capacity and genuineness of the transaction was submitted. In certain cases notices also came back as unserved . Therefore the learned assessing officer made an addition of INR 1 5.29 crores on account of share capital and share application money. The learned CIT – A dealt with the whole issue at para number 7.33.2 of his order at page number 86 onwards. He noted that the assessee did not discharge its initial onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital received. Most of the claim the investor were found by him to be based in Kolkata, inspector of the circle was sent to that place to verify the identity capacity and genuineness. The copy of the inspector report shows that the claimed investors are bogus. Therefore he confirmed the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A. Accordingly ground number 8 of the appeal is dismissed. 22. Ground number 9 is with respect to the confirmation of addition of INR 1 83980000/- on account of unsecured loan received. The assessee has not produced any details with respect to the identity of lenders, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Thus assessee has failed to discharge initial onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the income tax act. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in confirming the above addition. Ground number 9 is dismissed. 23. Ground number 10 is with respect to the addition of INR 3 6750000 on account of investment in the property at Mumbai. The assessee did not provide any details of information before the learned assessing officer or before the learned CIT – A. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower

authorities in confirming the above investment in the fixed assets. 24. Ground number 11 is with respect to the addition on account of investment in plant and machinery of Rs. 256090000/–. AO found that during the course of search assessee company has made the above purchases from Amar Jyoti VyaparLtd, Avitel Electronics Ltd, and Sun Broadcast Limited. Inquiries during search as well as in assessment proceedings revealed that those companies could not have made any sales to the assessee company and there from to be bogus. The purchase of software was found to be from a nonbanking financial company which did not have any background or asset to deal with into such software. The companies were also found to be bogus there were glaring differences found with the documents submitted by the assessee. The claim of development of software was also found to be false. During the course of appellate proceedings also no further details were produced and no justification could be given regarding the investments made in these purchases. Therefore the learned CIT – A confirmed the above addition. We do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly ground number 11 is dismissed. 25. Accordingly ITA number 3745/del/2016 for assessment year 2006 – 07 filed by the assessee is dismissed. 26. Facts in ITA number 3746/del/2016 for assessment year 2007 – 08 are identical to the facts stated in assessment year 2006 – 07. 27. Ground number 1 – 6 of the appeal are on the principles of natural justice were violated by the lower authorities. For the reasons given by us in deciding the appeal of the assessee for

assessment year 2006 – 07, as the same facts remain, we dismiss these grounds. 28. The ground number 7 and ground number 8 are interrelated where the depreciation claim on the plant and machinery of INR 1 67984968/– made by assessee are dismissed. The assessee has failed to prove the acquisition of the assets and therefore the above disallowance was made. No details were furnished before the lower authorities. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Accordingly ground number 7 and 8 of the appeal are dismissed. 29. Ground number 9 is with respect to the addition of INR 4 67000000 on account of share capital and share application money. This issue is identical to the issue decided in case of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 where the addition on account of capital and share application money is confirmed by the lower authorities. In view of the facts remaining the same, we find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in confirming the above addition as assessee has failed to furnish the details with respect to the identity, creditworthiness of the depositors as well as the genuineness of the transaction. Ground number 9 of the appeal is dismissed. 30. Ground number 10 is with respect to the acquisition of an asset of INR 6.90 crores at Noida. The assessee did not furnish any details before the lower authorities for acquisition of these assets. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the lower authorities on this account. Ground number 10 of the appeal is dismissed. 31. Ground number 11 is with respect to the investment in plant and machinery of INR 1 286519625/– made by the assessee. The

facts relating to this is similar to the facts for assessment year 2006 – 07. No evidences were produced about the genuineness of the purchases by the assessee. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Thus ground number 11 of the appeal is dismissed. 32. Ground number 12 – 16 of appeal are general in nature and therefore they are dismissed. 33. Accordingly ITA number 3746/del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed. 34. ITA number 3747/del/2016 is filed for assessment year 2008 – 09 by the assessee. The facts in this appeal are also identical to the facts stated by us in assessment year 2006 – 07. Therefore the respective grounds of appeal are dealt with as per reasons given by us in deciding the grounds for assessment year 2006 – 07. 35. Ground number 1 – 6 of the appeal are claiming that the principles of the natural justice have been violated. The identical grounds have been dismissed by us for assessment year 2006 – 07. Therefore for the same reason we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly they are dismissed. 36. Ground number 7 and 8 are with respect to the bogus claim of the depreciation on the plant and machinery amounting to rupees 22267114/–. The assessee has failed to show the requisite detail for the claim of the depreciation. In absence of any detail filed by the assessee justifying the claim, the lower authorities have confirmed the same. Identical ground for assessment year 2006 – 0 7 and 2007 – 08 are dismissed. Thus, We find no infirmity in the order of the learned assessing officer

as well as the learned CIT – N confirming the disallowance. Accordingly ground number 7 and 8 of the appeal are dismissed. 37. Ground number 9 is with respect to also on account of depreciation disallowed by the lower authorities for want of details. No details were furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in disallowing the depreciation of INR 3 1283971/–. Accordingly ground number 9 of the appeal is dismissed. 38. Ground number 10 is with respect to the addition on account of investment in property at Chennai amounting to INR 7 3931654/– for which assessee did not furnish any information before the lower authorities. As the identical issue arose in case of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08, no information is made available by the assessee, therefore the lower authorities have made the addition. As no information is furnished by the assessee we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in making this addition. Accordingly ground number 10 of the appeal is dismissed. 39. Ground number 11 is with respect to the investment in plant and machinery of INR 5 917066/– for which no information was furnished by the assessee. The issue has already been decided by us for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 where the facts are identical. In view of this we dismiss ground number 11 of the appeal. 40. Ground number 12 – 17 are general in nature and therefore there dismissed. 41. Accordingly ITA number 3747/del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008 – 09 is dismissed.

no further information was provided and therefore the addition was confirmed. The facts are identical to the facts in the case of the assessee for earlier years where the identical addition on account of share application money was made. In view of these facts we find no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities as assessee has failed to show the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the rejection of the above investment in the share application money with the assessee company. Accordingly ground number 10 is dismissed. 46. Ground number 11 is with respect to the addition of INR 1 3178112/– on account of investment in plant and machinery. Identical addition has been made by the learned lower authorities in the hands of the assessee. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. In absence of any details about the genuineness of the such purchases, we find no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in confirming the above addition. Accordingly ground number 11 of the appeal is dismissed. 47. Ground number 12 – 17 are general in nature. Hence they are dismissed. 48. ITA number 3750/del/2016 is filed for assessment year 2011 – 12 by the assessee. The facts in this year are also identical to the facts in the earlier years where the appeal of the assessee has been decided. 49. Ground number 1 – 6 of the appeal is with respect to the violation of the principles of natural justice by the lower authorities. We have already decided this issue in appeal of the assessee for earlier years. Therefore we dismiss these grounds. 50. Ground number 7 -9 are with respect to the bogus claim of depreciation amounting to INR 4 30162904/– on the plant and

machinery. These grounds are identical to ground number 7 and 18 appeal of the assessee for earlier years. For the same reasons given therein, we dismiss ground number 7-9 of the appeal. 51. Ground number 10 is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14 A of rupees 2293450 is made by the learned assessing officer under rule 8D of the income tax rules. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to submit the details about the applicability of the provisions of section 14 A of the income tax act. The issue has been dealt with in para number 6 of the assessment order. The assessee did not furnish any reply to the above query. Thereby the learned assessing officer computed the disallowance applying the provisions of rule 8D and disallowed a sum of rupees 2293450/–. Before the learned CIT – A no justification was given by the appellant for this disallowance. As there is a complete absence of information from the side of the assessee before the lower authorities, we do not find infirmity in their order in confirming the above disallowance. Accordingly ground number 10 of the appeal is dismissed. 52. Ground number 11 is with respect to the addition of/disallowance of INR 2 385113587 being the various expenditure incurred by the assessee including the opening stock of Rs. 296397855/–. Before the lower authorities assessee did not submit any details about the expenditure e, without substantiating the same with the vouchers and bills and the nature of expenditure, thus, no infirmity can be found with the orders of the lower authorities in disallowing the above expenditure. Before the lower authorities no books of accounts were produced to show the genuineness of the expenses claimed

on how the transactions have been entered into. The above addition as made on the basis of the search and seizure operation u/s 132 and the enquiries made by the revenue. At all the times the opportunities given to the assessee were avoided. In view of these facts, we confirm the actions of the lower authorities in disallowing the expenditure of INR 2 385113587/– on account of various expenditure including opening stock. Accordingly ground number 11 of the appeal is dismissed. 53. Ground number 12 – 17 of the appeal are general in nature and therefore dismissed. 54. Accordingly ITA number 3750/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 is dismissed. 55. Thus, all the appeals filed by the assessee involving the above stated assessment years are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2019.

- Sd/- Sd/- (K.N.CHARY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 11/11/2019 A K Keot Copy forwarded to

Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the other member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/ PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the order