MANSAROVAR FERROUS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata dated 15.03.2018 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.12.2016 for AY 2014-15.

Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: “1. That the Appellate Order dated 15th March, 2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and void ab-initio being passed against the violation of the facts and law applicable in the instant case. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of commodity profit of Rs.4,16,45,293 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on irrelevant considerations and presumptions which are based on mere suspicions, surmises and conjectures.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,04,113 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the said Act in absence of any documentary evidence of payment of any commission.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-S, Kolkata erred-in confirming the aforesaid additions of Rs.4,16,45,293 and Rs.1,04,113 made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of untested statement of Mr. Mohit Agarwal recorded under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without furnishing the copy thereof and without allowing any opportunity of cross-examination to the Assessee.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of the unsecured loan of Rs.2,05,00,000 and the interest of Rs.5,93,100 paid on such unsecured loan made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the Assessee Company allegedly routed its unaccounted money through the said unsecured loans.

That the' learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of the unsecured loan of Rs.2,05,00,000 and the interest of Rs.5,93,100 paid on such unsecured loan on irrelevant considerations and on mere suspicions, surmises and conjectures.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.77,77,546 made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without pointing out any defects and/or lacuna in the evidences including petty cash book produced before him as well as the Assessing Officer.

That, without prejudice to the Ground No.8 herein above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the sum of Rs.77,77,546 without appreciating that the said sum included the sum of Rs.35,95,858 which were not claimed as expenses and thus the same were not exigible to tax.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs.55,17,056 made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

That, without prejudice to the Ground No.10 herein above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.55,17,056 would amount to double addition as the part of the cash expenditures of Rs.77,77,546 disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act was out of the aforesaid receipts of Rs.55,17,056.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,19,67,672, being closing balances of trade creditors, made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of irrelevant considerations and on mere suspicions, surmises and conjectures.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,19,67,672 in complete disregard of the binding judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MIs. Diagnostics v. CIT [ITA No.153 of 2004] which was squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case.

That the learned CIT(A)-5, Kolkata erred in agreeing to Assessing officer action of not allowing set off business loss of rs.2,76,23,391/- against the income of Rs.9,97,34,134/- assessed by the Assessing Officer under the head “other sources.”

That the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata erred in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the Current Year Loss at Rs.2,76,23,391/- as against the Appellant Assessee company claim of Rs.3,29,61,291/-.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2014 reporting nil income. Assessee paid minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on its book profit of Rs.9,28,355/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act after making additions and disallowances on various counts including bogus commodity profit, cash payments u/s. 40A(3), interest on loan, commission paid from unaccounted source, bogus unsecured loan, receipt of cash and sundry creditors. Total income after all these additions and disallowances was assessed at Rs.9,97,34,130/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) whereby certain relief were granted and the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed in the year 2018. Several dates of hearings have been fixed since then and on all these occasions the case was adjourned primarily because no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. On certain few occasions, Advocate Shri Kawaljeet Singh and/or Advocate Shri A. K. Upadhyay represented but only to seek adjournment which were granted as requested. From the perusal of the records, we find that no submissions are available in the form of written synopsis or paper book to corroborate and substantiate the claim made by the assessee by way of this appeal. The statement of facts forming part of the records is reproduced for ease of reference: