TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to explain the source of alleged cash credit. 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 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 and alleged sum is rightly treated as the unaccounted income of assessee, which has been routed in the books through bogus/accommodation entry in the form of share capital and security premium. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /09/2018 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2. For that on the facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata was wrong in not considering the merit of the case, therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata is completely arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 3.For that on the facts of the case the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata confirmed the addition of Rs.1,10,20,000/- as unexplained cash credit which was initiated by the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings without sufficient time to the appellant u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961. 4.For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal. 5. Perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing thrice on 25.07.2018, 20.08.2018 and finally on 29.08.2018. But on such appointed dates neither any one attended nor any submission in support of its claim/grounds was filed before him. The assessee remained absent on the said dates of hearing. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) dismissing the appeal of assessee. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,10,20,000/-. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee had made no further efforts to file any other documentary evidence or paper book and written submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the cash creditors as well as genuineness of the transaction. The assessee company has miserably failed to explain the source of alleged cash credit. 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 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 of the Act have rightly been invoked by ld. AO and alleged sum is rightly treated as the unaccounted income of assessee, which has been routed in the books through bogus/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
