PURUS BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-20(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against order dated 26.08.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-36 (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short ‘the Ld. FAA’) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-36/10130/2016-17 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 27.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

As the case was called for hearing, none has appeared for the assessee. Record shows that notices have been issued repeatedly and also representative have appeared and sought adjournment. None has appeared today. No notice is justified. The ld. DR was heard who supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities below.

Appreciating the material on record, it comes that to examine the subscription of share capital during the year, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The ld. AO examined the transaction and found the same to be not well explained and addition u/s 68 was made. The ld. AO had issued notices u/s 131 and 133(6) of the Act and a report was also called from the Inspector about the actual conduct of the business of the companies who contributed to the share of the assessee company.

The assessee has primarily relied the evidences in the form of bank statements of shareholder companies, copies of accounts and copies of income- tax returns of shareholder companies.

However, the tax authorities below have found them to be insufficient to establish the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

We find no error in the findings of the ld. tax authorities as merely, on the basis of documents relied by the assessee, the burden cast u/s 68 of the Act cannot be construed to be discharged. There is nothing on record to show that 2 the assessee had made efforts to discharge the onus of identifying the companies to rebut the presumption drawn by the AO on the basis of reports received on the notices issued u/s 133(6) and u/s 131(2) of the Act. The inquiry report of the Inspector was heavily relied by the ld. AO and there is nothing before us to show that the inquiry report as given by the Inspector with regard to the identity of the assessee company being suspicious was incorrect. In the light of the aforesaid, we find no reasons to interfere in the concurrent findings of the ld. tax authorities.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2024.