Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 O R D E R PER SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA - AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 20.04.2019 passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application was filed seeking adjournment. The appeal was, therefore, proceed to be heard ex-parte.
The assessee has raised several grounds on merits before us, No. I to No. IV. But a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the appeal has been dismissed by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 521 days M/s. Appletree Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 . The Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeals on merits noting that the assessee had accepted the addition during the assessment proceedings. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) at Para 2 and Para 2.1 of the order is as under: “2. The appellant has filed appeal on18/11/2017 against the order passed by ITO, Wd. 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad which was served to it on 20/03/2016. The appeal is filed late by 521 days. The appellant in Form No. 35 has stated the ground for condonation of delay as it has successfully filed its appeal manually on 18/04/2016 and referred to Circular No. 20/2016. It is seen that CBDT vide its Circular No. 20 / 2016 dated 26/05/2016 has extended the window for filing e-appeals upto 15/06/2016. The appellant has e-filed the appeal beyond this window by 521 days approximately. The appellant has not given any reason why the appeal was filed beyond 521 days. Therefore, delay of appeal cannot be condoned. 2.1. Even on merit, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- of share application money which was accommodation entry. The AO has made the addition on the basis of statement of Shri Chandrakant Shah who was a accommodation entry provider and has given the share application money through its various companies. The appellant before the Assessing Officer has accepted the addition to buy peace of mind.”
On going through the same we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is admittedly of 521 days and the assessee has given no plausible reason for the same except for stating that the appeal in physical form was filed in time though it was admittedly required to be e -filed. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that despite the CBDT extending the time limit for e filing appeals ,the assessee failed to e file it within the extended time limit and in fact delayed it by a considerable time period resulting in a delay of 521 days, for no plausible reason. The Ld. CIT(A) has , we hold, therefore rightly refused to condone the delay.
Even on merits we find that the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- of share application money treating it as accommodation entry ,was made on the admission of the assessee itself. M/s. Appletree Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 5. The Ld. DR drew our attention to Para 9 of the Assessment Order where the reply of the assessee dated 10.03.2016, accepting the addition, was reproduced as under: “9. In response to the said show cause notice Shri Pratik Jain C.A. attended and vide order sheet entry dt.9/3/2016 asked for adjournment and as per his request case adjourn for 10/3/2016. On 10/3/2016 Shri Pratik Jain C.A. attended and submitted the reply vide letter dt. 10/3/2016 and in his reply he agree for the addition of Rs.30,00,000 but subject to allowance of business loss as 'per return of income of Rs.10,58,036/-. The reply of the assessee dt. 10/3/2016 is kept on record, however the extract of the letter dt. 10/3/2016 is reproduced as under: "As per last hearing in regards to addition of amount received as share capital: 1. Information on the basis of which your honour has a reason to believe that the amount received for Share Capital is Bogus/Sham: We would like to bring it to your kind attention that the assessee has decided to accept the said Addition of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which the assessee has received as Share Application Money, to buy mental peace. The assessee wishes to co-operate with the proceedings and will pay the tax on the same. This acceptance addition may be considered as an acceptance under protest and should not tantamount to addition of other amounts received by the assessee for share application as this addition is accepted under protest to buy peace of mind as the addition is made on the basis of information. We also request your honour to kindly provide us a setoff of business loss of Rs.10,78,948/- which has been claimed by the assessee for carry forward in the income tax return filed by the assessee."”
Since the assessee himself has accepted, the addition the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition . In view of the above the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld.