JAYALAKSHMI ALLOYS INDIA (P) LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, CORP WARD -2, COIMBATORE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore, dated 07.11.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 admitting income of ₹. 22,25,153/-. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. After considering the details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by assessing income of the assessee at ₹. 28,63,455/- after making addition under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any details with regard to the credit available in the books of account. On appeal, since the assessee could not furnish any supporting documents for the credit, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 68 of the Act.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Despite service of notice [RPAD on record], none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition filed. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR.

We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee was show-caused to furnish details to verify the credit of ₹.6,38,302/- shown against M/s. Aditya Enterprises. Since the assessee could not furnish any details against the credit, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, the assessee produced a ledger copy of the account and confirmation letter, which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer to file remand report after enquiry, etc. Copy of the remand report was forwarded to the assessee for compliance. However, there was no response from the assessee to the remand report forwarded by the ld. CIT(A). The creditors just filed a simple letter confirming the outstanding balance. The party has not produced any details of the sale bills, items transacted, mode of subsequent payment, etc. When this new information was passed on to the assessee, even the assessee company could not produce any supporting documents. Inspite of repeated opportunities, the assessee could not prove the purchase before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee has inflated the purchase to the extent of ₹.6,38,302/- and accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Before the Tribunal also, no material was brought on record. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of authorities below.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 25th July, 2019 in Chennai.