M/S. SPEED INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”] dt. 27/06/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the addition of Rs.7000000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act 1961. That the addition of Rs.451321/- as u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and Rs.162075/- as u/s 14A.

2. That even otherwise the addition is unwarranted when the payee has disclosed the impugned sum as part of his share capital.

3. That appellant is already merged with M/s. Speed Infracon Private Limited before the order passed by concerned Assessing Officer.

4. That appellant reserves right to raise additional grounds during hearing.”

3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned orders of the lower authorities to submit Assessment Year: 2012-13 Speed Infracon Private Limited 2 that the same are ex-parte orders. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that in fact the assessment was framed in the name of erstwhile company i.e. M/s. Harmony Infraprojects Private Limited. That at the time of assessment proceedings, the said company was under the process of amalgamation with the present assessee company i.e. M/s. Speed Infracon Private Limited. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 27/03/2015 whereas, the said erstwhile company M/s. Harmony Infraprojects Private Limited, stood amalgamated to the present assessee company w.e.f. 01/04/2015 pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court dt. 19/09/2016. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order in the name of the erstwhile company M/s. Harmony Infraprojects Private Limited. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to the above reasons, the assessee company could not represent itself before the lower authorities. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee company may be given an opportunity to present its case before lower authorities and submit the required explanations /evidence to prove its case.

4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee company has failed to submit that the assessee company has failed to submit the required details and evidence before the lower authorities and, therefore, the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned additions.

5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records.