SHIV SHAKTI HANDICRAFTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(2), NEW DELHI

O R D E R This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 25.09.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 on the following grounds:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of share capital as the said share capital was issued in FY 2000-01 and is bonafide.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of treating the loans and advances given as not genuine however the said loans and advances were given in FY 2011-12 and is bonafide. Addition u/s 68 without any credit in the year under consideration is bad in law.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding assessment wrongly done u/s. 143(3) as assessment should have been done u/s. 153C as satisfaction note of DCIT Central Circle Noida dated 10.10.2017 was received. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not adjudicating ground of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) without any material on record. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 22.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 9,305/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was completed by the AO on 31.12.2017 determining assessment income at Rs. 10,90,695/- by making disallowance of Rs. 11,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 25.09.2018, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the impugned order dated 25.09.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of share capital as the said share capital was issued in FY 2000-01 and is bonafide. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of treating the loans and advances given as not genuine however the said loans and advances were given in FY 2011-12 and is bonafide. Hence, the addition u/s 68 without any credit in the year under consideration is bad in law. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned order of the AO which is contrary to law, passed without application of mind and without complying with the procedure and rules, is against equity and justice and facts of the assessee and material on record. It was the further submission that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding assessment wrongly done u/s. 143(3) of the Act as assessment should have been done u/s. 153C of the Act as satisfaction note of DCIT Central Circle Noida dated 10.10.2017 was received. In view of above, he requested to delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee.