TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us Const. P. Ltd. The assessee company has failed to prove the source of ₹ 30 lacs credited in its books of account - the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim by filing any documentary evidence - assessee company has also failed to produce the Director of M/s Shattarchi Fin. & Leasing Ltd. and M/s Miraculous Construction P. Ltd. Even assessee has not filed any confirmation or bank account or balance sheet of M/s Miraculous Const. P. Ltd. for substantiating its claim before the Revenue Authority – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 235/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2014 - Shri H. S. Sidhu And Shri J. S. Reddy,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. Shameer Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, J. M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi for A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The facts relating to the issue in dispute are that the assessee filed its return of income on 01/11/2004 declaring Nil income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed letter for adjournment and the case of the assessee was adjourned. Further notice u/s 142(1) and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act were issued on 17/10/2011 and served upon the assessee by speed post. After that the show cause notice for final opportunity were also issued to the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 14/11/2011 in response to the same the Authorized Representative of the assessee were appeared and filed part details and case was adjourned to 21/11/2011 for filing remaining details. Later on the case of the assessee was also adjourned for 30/11/2011, 07/12/2011, 12/12/2011 but most of the time assessee remained absent before the AO. 5. During the course of assessment proceeding the Authorized Representative of the assessee vide his letter dated 14/11/2011 submitted that the assessee has received ₹ 30 lakhs from M/s Miraculas Construction P. Ltd. under settlement of a dispute since 1995- 96. The amount was recoverable from him against the leasing charges due from 1995-96 to 1997-98. Due to this non-payment, the assessee has to suffer a major finance loss and virtually has to close down this busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity, the above pattern and the frequency of deposits and withdrawals at intervals lends further credence to the fact of account has been used only for the purpose of providing accommodation entries. The onus lay heavily on the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of transaction by either providing and independent third party evidence in support of genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of M/s Shattarchi Fin. Leasing P. Ltd. by producing the Director of M/s Shattarchi Fin. Leasing P. Ltd. with proof of availability of funds with them in their own capacity. But the assessee nor his Authorized Representative established with the proof of evidence that the transaction in dispute is relating to the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, the amount of ₹ 30 lacs received from M/s Shattarchi Fin. Leasing P. Ltd. was only a camouflage to introduce the assessee company on unaccounted money into the business and this transaction is a bogus transaction and is not relating to the business activities of the assessee. The AO added ₹ 30 lacs to the income of the assessee company by passing order dated 16/12/2011 u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act. 6.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shape of paper book. He only argued as we have stated above. 10. On the contrary, ld. DR relied upon the impugned order passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority. He further stated that the assessee has taken the accommodation entries of ₹ 30,04,500/- from Shattarchi Fin. Leasing P. Ltd. with whom the assessee have no business relation. The AO has also made an enquiry and found that M/s Shattarchi Fin. Leasing P. Ltd. is not carrying any actual business. It has been found to be engaged in activity of providing accommodation entries as stated by the AO in the assessment order. Ld. DR strongly opposed the request of ld. Counsel for the assessee for setting aside the issue in dispute to the AO for sufficient decision because the sufficient opportunity has been given by the Revenue Authority to the assessee for substantiating its claim before them. But assessee has failed to substantiate its claim before them. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed. 11. We have heard the both parties and perused the relevant record available with us. We are of the view that the information in the case of assessee was received from DIT(Inv.) that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
