9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax, Circle-13(1)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that the notice has been sent to the assessee on several occasions. In fact Chartered Accountant of the assessee had even sought adjournment before this Tribunal. The last adjournment was taken on 03/02/2020 by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee. Thereafter, the notice of hearing on 26/03/2020, 17/06/2020, 19/08/2020 was sent to the assessee but on those dates Bench did not function. Later, fresh notices were sent to the assessee for hearing scheduled on 20/10/2020, 03/12/2020, 25/02/2021, 16/06/2021 and 05/08/2021. On all these occasions, there is absolutely no compliance from the side of the assessee. Hence, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- from one concern namely Hema Trading Company which loan was also repaid during the year. Even this concern was stated to be one of the paper companies operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The ld. AO based on the evidences gathered in the course of search and seizure operation conducted in the premises of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain u/s. 132 of the Act came to the conclusion that these loan creditors which are engaged only in providing accommodation entries to various parties as instructed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, which are accommodation entries and accordingly, treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act in the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,80,00,000/- by treating the same as acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal had been completely eroded and it had a negative share capital and reserves of Rs. 4.79 Crores as on 31/03/2012 and had shown loss of Rs. 7,00,59,000/- during the year. By this, the ld. CIT(A) had categorically observed that the said loan creditor did not have sufficient creditworthiness to advance monies to the assessee. This fact remained uncontroverted by the assessee with material evidences. 3.1. In respect of loan received from M/s. Keshava Enterprises, the loan had been duly confirmed by Ms. Shubhangi Manjarekar, Proprietor of M/s. Keshav Enterprises. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of Keshava Enterprises. Against this, the revenue is not in appeal before us. 3.2. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee before us is dismissed. 4. The second issue raised by the assessee is challenging the confirmation of disallowance of ROC charges of Rs. 1,55,811/-. 4.1. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on records. We find that the ld. AO had disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,55,811/- on account of ROC charges on the basis with the same is related to increase in authorised share capital and hence, it is capital expenditure. This disallowance has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 4.2. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
