Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM]
order
: March 07, 2018 ORDER
PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 16, Kolkata dated 30.10.2017 passed ex-parte dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee before him.
The assessee in the present is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration originally on 26.03.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,007/-. The said return was initially processed by the A.O. under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 04.06.2011. The assessment however was subsequently reopened by him on the basis of certain information gathered during the course of search and seizure action conducted in the Badalia Group of cases and after recording the reasons, a notice under section 148 was issued by him on 11.09.2012. Although there was no response initially by the assessee to the said notice issued by a fixture, the authorised Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Revive Traders Pvt. Ltd. representative of the assessee, who subsequently appeared before the A.O., made a request to treat the return originally filed by the assessee on 26.03.2011 as the return filed in compliance to the notice under section 148. Thereafter the assessment was completed by the A.O. under section 147/143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 27.03.2014 wherein he made two additions of Rs. 2,73,643/- and Rs. 20,38,615/- to the total income of the assessee on account of commission income and peak credit balance in the undisclosed bank baccount respectively. 3. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: “
1. Because the learned A.O. has erred in considering the rate of commission for accommodation entries at the rate of Rs. 250 per lakh of cheques issued instead of Rs. 100 per lakh.
2. Because the learned A.O. has erred in considering peak credit balance of Rs. 20,38,615/- standing in the bank accounts as investment from undisclosed sources, but the funds were used to be cleared within 2 to 3 days and there was hardly any closing balance remained thereafter. Also there has been no cash withdrawals and A.O. had duly accepted the modus operandi in the accounts and commission earned. So both the view cannot be taken.
3. Because that Shri M.M. Daga has already accepted that the Bank Account with DCB was used and maintained by him peak credit on that account cannot be added in the hand of the appellant.”
4. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice/s issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and keeping in view the same, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his