TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness, expenses u/s 37 at assessment stage as well as during appellate stage. Thus, the additions made by AO are upheld and accordingly appellant s grounds of appeal are dismissed We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunalno material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned ord er on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A); and dismiss this appeal of assessee. - ITA No: 4213/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 4-12-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [ Ld. CIT(A) for short], dated 31.03.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld' Assessing Officer misunderstood the remarks of RBI Inspector for non declaring the loans of ₹ 9.61 Crs as NPA and not making the provisions of ₹ 5.69 Crs. on the same and treating it as diversion of the fund. Even the Ld' Assessing Officer ignored their comments about declaring more profit by such provision of ₹ 5.69 Crs. The Ld' Assessing Officer also ignored the fact that if the Assessee declared the loans of ₹ 9.61 Crs as NPA than a total interest of ₹ 1.25 crs was also to be reversed in addition to making the provision of ₹ 5.69 crs and due to which the declared profit would be reduced by ₹ 1.25 Crs. The Ld' Assessing Officer has also erred by taking the above bases for disallowing the expenditure without pointing out any deficiencies in the books of account. 6. Any additional ground, if any, may be submitted with your kind permission. It is, therefore, prayed that the above additions may kindly be deleted and the appeal of the appellant assessee may be allowed on merits of the case. (B) When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 02.12.2019, there was nobody present from assessee s side. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.08.2003 3. Raj Nagar Branch (Ex-counter) Ec. Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad 25.09.2007 4. Surqjpur BranDhTftx-counterj Surajpur, Greater Noida 15.05.2008 5. Hapur Branch Opp, Bus Stand, Hapur 08.04.2009 6. Dadri (Ex-counter) - Opp, Bhagwati Nursing Home, Railway Road, Dadri, U.P 13.12.2009 The assessee vide order sheet entry dated 06.01.2016 has been asked to produce Audit Report of RBI for F.Y. 2011-12. The date for compliance was fixed for 07.01.2015. On the given date neither anybody appeared nor any written reply, regarding Audit Report, was received in this office. However, on 08.01,2015, the AR produced a letter from RBI which was addressed to the assessee bank. The AR cited the prior approval condition of RBI in sharing the report before any Authority or Court. In order to get the Audit Report, a notice u/s 133(6) was issued to The Dy. Genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Secretary and Chairman not appended) are also yet to be delivered to the respective members. The Board in its meeting dated November, 29, 2011 passed resolution for enhancing the authorized capital of the bank to ₹ 15.00 crore from ₹ 5,00 crore as hitherto. The fee for the nominal membership was also increased from ₹ 2.00 to ₹ 100.00 in the same meeting. The cecisions of the board were registered with registrar on November 1, 2011. Following investments in the form of Share capital have been cited where the source of the contribution was not ascertainable. These are 1. Sunita Bhati - (₹ 45,00,000/-) 2. Anita Bhati - (₹ 35,00,000/-) 3. Raj Singh Bhati - (₹ 30,00,000/-) 4. Udai Veer Singh - (₹ 15,00,000/-) To further cloud the genuineness of these transactions, the report mentions following other facts:- i. The bank was charging 10% Share money from the borrowers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter 'AO') the appellant has filed this appeal taking the following grounds of appeal:- 3.1 Grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle - I, Ghaziabad has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of ₹ 1,15,00,000/- u/s 68 of Income Tex. Act, 1061 for addition in Share Capital only by making the reference of RBI Inspection report, despite and ignoring the facts that the assessee submitted all the evidence to prove their credit worthiness. After providing the all the related documents the Ld Assessing Officer didn t raise any querry for the same. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the RBI Inspector had any role to justify the credit worthiness of the Shareholder. The have to give the report on financial discipline of the Bank according to rules and regulation of the RBI. 2. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle - I, Ghazjabad has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of ₹ 29,50,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 18.05.2016 An application filed for adjournment for time to file written submission and the case fixed for hearing on 09.06.2016 4 17.03.2017 28.03.2017 An application filed for adjournment counsel out of station adjourned to 30.03.2017 5 30.03.2017 not attended 5. From the above it is clear that despite several opportunities none appeared on behalf of the appellant for hearing only applications for adjournment have been filed before the undersigned. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In may above view, I find support from the following decision:- (i) In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 478) wherein their Lordships have held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it (ii) In the case of Estate of Late Tukojl Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Representative (in short Ld. Sr. DR ). However, as mentioned earlier, none was present from the assessee s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 31.03.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 31.03.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (C.1) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 31.03.2017 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
