M/S GOPIKAR SUPPLY PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

The above captioned appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -14, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 12/06/2020, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

When the appeal was called out, none appeared on behalf of the Even, there is no application filed by the assessee seeking adjournment. Perusal of record reveals that beginning from 29/08/2022, the appeal has been listed for hearing on six occasions after which, the ld. Counsel for the assessee withdrew his power of attorney. Thereafter, multiple notices for hearing sent through registered post, e-mail and phone to the assessee in the details given in 2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Gopikar Supply Pvt. Ltd. Form No.

Even, repeated attempts made by the Registry to communicate the date of hearing through email address provided by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal have failed to evoke any response from the assessee. The aforesaid facts clearly reveal the recalcitrant attitude of the assessee in the matter of the present appeal filed by it. Since, sufficient opportunities of being heard have already been extended, which the assessee has failed to avail, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee does not deserve any further indulgence of this Bench. Accordingly, we will proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua assessee after hearing ld. Departmental Representative and based on materials available on record.

The sole grievance of the assessee raised vide Ground No. 1 is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.20,66,00,000/- on account of unexplained share application money.

Facts is brief are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading. It e-filed its return of income on 13/10/2008 declaring income of Rs.16,610/- for Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessment was originally completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 09/09/2010. However, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, observed that the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the Assessing Officer did not conducted thorough and proper enquiry into the existence and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the share transactions and consequently set aside the assessment order vide order u/s 263 of the Act dt. 08/03/2013. 3 I.T.A. No. 504/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Gopikar Supply Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, issued several statutory notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 calling upon the assessee to furnish various information/details to explain its returned income, however, the assessee never complied to any of the notices. Neither did the directors of the share subscriber companies appeared in response to the summons issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish any other details including confirmations from the parties from whom the assessee claimed to have raised the share application money. Thus, in absence of any evidence furnished by the assessee to explain the genuineness of share application money amounting to Rs.20,66,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer added it to the income of the assessee. Income assessed at Rs.20,67,25,110/- vide assessment framed u/s 147/143(3)/263/144 of the Act, dt. 20/03/2014. The assessee challenged the addition before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed.

We have heard ld. D/R and perused materials on record. It is observed, in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to multiple statutory notices issued by the Assessing. No conclusive evidence was furnished by the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the share application money of Rs.20,66,00,000/-. Even, the assessee failed to furnish any confirmation from the share subscribers. Before the first appellate authority also, the assessee did not make proper compliance which did not inspire any confidence. There is no improvement in the position even before us, as the assessee has remained non-compliant all through. Since, the assessee has failed to furnish any evidence