NATARAJAN RAJMOHAN,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP CIRCLE 2, CBE, COIMBATORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065089497(1) dated 23.05.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2013- 14. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 23.05.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 The appellant through its 15 grounds of appeal has challenged addition of Rs.1.47 Crs made by the Ld. AO vide his order dated 29.03.2016. All the grounds of appeal are centered around the addition of Rs.1.47 Crs made by the Ld.AO u/s 68. All the grounds being on common issue are adjudicated together. Brief factual matrix is that the Ld. AO noted that the appellant had received advances of Rs.1.47 Crs during the year under consideration. The Ld. AO asked to submit details so as to prove identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions. The assesse applied return of income as well as cash book of the persons having given advances. The Ld. AO rejected assesse’s explanation on the premise that the concerned persons had not filed any earlier returns but only for AY-2013-14 & 2014-15 and that too manually. The returns were reportedly filed in ASK center during the course of assessment proceedings. The return income was below Rs.2.5 lakhs. The cash books of the persons showed huge opening balances and no worthwhile cash inflow. The advances were received in cash. The Ld. AO noted several other deficiencies indicated in para 4.3 of his order on page-3 & 4 of the assessment order and proceeded to conclude that the impugned advances were ingenuine, sources were unproved. The Ld. First Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Ld. Assessing Authority. While doing so, he noted in para-6 that the appellant had not responded to the multiple hearing notices issued by him leading to the only conclusion that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In his detailed findings contained in Para-6.1 to 6.3.3 on page-7 to 9 of his order he concluded that the assesse has failed to satisfactorily prove the credit worthiness of lenders and the genuineness of the transaction. 3.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse fiercely contested the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on the premise that he has not appreciated the facts properly and that the order deserves to be set aside. In support of its contentions, the Ld. AR attempted to find faults in the order of lower authorities. The Ld. DR on the other hand would like to rely upon the order of lower authorities. It was argued that the decision is based upon current understanding and appreciation of the facts of the case. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is not in dispute that the impugned addition falls in the realm of provisions of section 68 of the act. The receipt of advances of Rs.1.47 Crs by the assesse, largely in cash is also not in dispute. The Ld. AO and Ld. First Appellate Authority have vividly brought on records that the details provided by the assesse were not fully satisfying the troika of identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions prescribed u/s 68. It is trite law that the primary owners of satisfying stipulations of section 68 rests upon the taxpayer. The assesse has also not been able to explain as to what prevented it from making compliances to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which requires any intervention. The order of Ld. First Appellate Authority is therefore sustained and all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are dismissed.