Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th Oct., 2016.