M/S PARESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 989/BANG/2010Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 October 2016AY 2002-0311 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in the validity of the assessment or the direction for a statutory audit. The addition on account of unexplained share application money was also confirmed as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte as they failed to appear despite repeated notices. The appeal challenged the validity of assessment, directions for audit under Section 142(2A), and an addition of Rs. 75 lakhs on account of share application money.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the assessment proceedings, the necessity of a special audit, and the genuineness of share application money introduced by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(2A),Section 153A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH “ B ”

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.15.6.2010 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore for the Assessment Year 2002-03.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when the apepal was called for hearing. It transpired from the record that despite repeated notices issued through RPAD, the assessee is not responding and pursuing this appeal. Some

1.

of the notices have received back unserved with the postal remark “Addressee Left”. Inthese facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to dispose off this appeal ex-parte.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal :

5. The authorities further failed to arrive at a conclusion that there exists complexity in the transactions of the appellant and without making a honest effort to understand the transactions invoked the provisions of section 142(2A of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

Without prejudice the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the total income as determined by the ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.92,62,153 as against the returned income of Rs.17,62,153 under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

We have heard the learned D.R. and considered the relevant material on record. The assessee has challenged the validity of assessment as well as the directions issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Act') for getting the accounts of the assessee audited. The CIT (Appeals) has given a detailed finding in para 2.1.2 on the issue of validity of direction for statutory audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act as under :

In the absence of any contrary facts and arguments brought before us, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT (Appeals) for this issue.

5.

AS regards the validity of assessment under Section 153A, the CIT (Appeals) has dealt with this issue in paras 2.2.2 & 2.2.3 as under :

In the absence of any specific illegality or error pointed out in the finding of CIT (Appeals), we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue.

6. The next issue is regarding addition of Rs.75 lakhs on account of share application money introduced by the assessee in the books of accounts. We find that the CIT (Appeals) has dealt with each and every argument of the assessee and given a finding that the assessee has failed to explain the source of share application money and therefore the addition made under Section 69 of the Act was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The relevant conclusion of the CIT (Appeals) is given in para 2.3.3 as under :

We find that despite sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee, the assessee has not produced any evidence to prove the identity of the share applicant. Since it is private limited company and shares of the private limited company can be issued only to the known and close persons of the existing share-holders/promoters of the company therefore, it is the primary onus of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Hence we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th Oct., 2016.

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

All 676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →