MONALISA ENCLAVE PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 31.08.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 19.12.2019.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant being a company had filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. ‘NIL’. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to the statutory notice, the I.T.A. No.: 1071/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Monalisa Enclave Private Limited. appellant company submitted the details through e-proceeding. Thereafter, income of the appellant was assessed u/s 143(2) of the Act at total income of Rs. 15,27,000/- by making addition as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and disallowance of expenses of Rs. 23,000/-. 2.1. The appellant preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) whereat he submitted his submission but ld. CIT(A) has dismissed his appeal thereby holding that the addition to the income of Rs. 15,04,000/- is found to be on sound factual and legal position. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the present appeal has been preferred. 2.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the order of ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO is bad both on facts as well as law as the appellant has submitted the entire documents relating to M/s. Rasili Barter Pvt. Ltd. that goes to establish the identity of the person and the shareholder, creditworthiness of the transaction and genuineness of the transaction. Even though ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) had added the share capital of Rs. 15,04,000/- as unexplained share capital. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessee/appellant can not force the director of M/s. Rasili Barter Pvt. Ltd. to appear before the AO or the ld. CIT(A) though the appellant had already discharged his duty by submitting all those documents which were required by the AO and asked to submit to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed documents relating to M/s. Rasili Barter Pvt. Ltd. 3. Contrary to that it had been argued by the ld. D/R that identity, creditworthiness of the appellant company were documentary and personal appearance by the directors of the applicant company have been avoided. So, the questions asked by the AO remained unanswered and accordingly, he supports the impugned order of ld. CIT(A).