TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed cash credit u/s. 68 and also unable to prove identity, creditworthiness of the cash creditors as well as genuineness of the transaction. The assessee company has miserably failed to explain the source of alleged cash credits. If the assessee had sufficient details to explain the alleged sum, it could have certainly filed those details at any stage. Consistently escaping from appearing/producing the documents and alleged parties before the ld. AO and the appellate authority(ld.CIT-A) indicates that the assessee has no plausible explanation to explain the source of alleged sum of share capital and security premium and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 have rightly been invoked by ld. AO treating the alleged sum as the unaccounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. DR. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the AY 2008-09:- 1. That under the facts circumstances of the case, the Ld.ClT(A) erred in passing order exparte. 2. That under the facts circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred In confirming addition amounting to Rs.11,12,00,000/, being the share capital alongwith premium raised by the assessee during the year the same to be unexplained cash credit in terms of Sec.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition is unjustified and needs to be deleted. 3. That under the facts circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of a sum of Rs.9,160/under section 14A read with Rule8D. The addition is unjustifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital/share premium. In pursuance to the said direction, the ld. AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, which was not properly served upon the assessee by the postal authority as no such company was located in the given address. However, on 21-03-2014 Miss Megha Goenka A/R of the assessee appeared and filed some details. For looking into the three limbs of section 68 of the Act i.e. to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share transaction, the assessee was asked to produce the alleged directors/subscribers of the company for examination. But there was complete non compliance of the assessee on the date (25-03-2014) fixed by the ld.AO. The AO found that the assessee intentionally avoided the assessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irming the order of ld. CIT(A). 11. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material placed on record before us. The assessee has challenged the finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 11,12,00,000/- by the ld.AO for unexplained cash credits of share capital and share premium received during the year. We notice that the assessee company had offered Nil income for the AY 2008-09. The assessee company has been able to procure share capital/share premium at Rs. 11,12,00,000/-. It creates doubt about the genuineness of the alleged transaction as to how such company with no asset and poor track record has been able to procure share capital/share premium totalling to Rs.1,12,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of share capital and security premium. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of assessee s appeal is dismissed. 12. Ground no. 3 is with regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act. However, on perusal of order passed u/s.144 of the Act, we find that this addition/disallowance was correctly made as there was no submission/satisfactory explanation. We thus fail to find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we dismiss ground no. 3 raised by the assessee. 13. Ground no.4 is consequential and academic in nature which requires no adjudication. 14. Ground no.5 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
