M/S. ADMIRAL FINSTOCK PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMAAssessment Year: 2011-12
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated
10.03.2016 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.11/14-15 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated
28.02.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-1(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
2
Heard and perused the records. At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee and the records also show. Repeated notices have been issued to the assessee including by registered post on which it was reported that there is no such person. No more opportunity is justified. Therefore arguments of learned DR were heard. 3. Ongoing through the material on record we find that the impugned additions have been made on account of failure of the assessee to discharge of establishing the genuineness of unsecured loan of Rs. 61 lacs and current liability of Rs. 66,87,030/-. As before the assessing officer necessary evidences were not filed but additional evidences were filed before the CIT(A), which were admitted under Rule 46 and remand report was sought from the assessing officer. However, before assessing officer these additional evidences were not duly established in the remand proceedings, leading to CIT(A) give a part relief. There is no reason to have a different view of the evidences as taken up by the CIT(A). The ground has no substance. The appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2025. (SHAMIM YAHYA) (ANUBHAV SHARMA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 31st January, 2025. dk