Durga Ferrous P. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer

R.K. Panda, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.12.2018 of the CIT(A)-34, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2008-09.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. It was seen that the notice issued by the registry through RPAD was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "No such address". The assessee has not taken any steps to intimate the changed address, if any. Therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

The assessee in the various grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the assessment order passed u/s. 143 (3)/ 147 and thereby sustaining the various additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the IT Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 17.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.2,06,052/-. On the basis of information received from the investigation wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries worth Rs.15 lacs from shell companies namely M/s. Victory Software Private Limited and M/s. Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd, run by Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain through their employees during the financial year 2007-08 and on the basis of post search enquiry, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 it was submitted by the assessee that the return already filed u/s.139 (1) may be treated as return in response to notice u/s.148 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices to which the assessee complied. Since the assessee could not explain satisfactorily the identity and credit worthiness of the loan creditors and genuiness of the transactions, the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act made addition of Rs.15 lacs to the total income of the assessee and determined the taxable income at Rs.12,33,948/- after giving credit to the loss suffered by the assessee.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. I find due to non substantiation of the identity and credit worthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of the transactions, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act, has made addition of Rs.15 lacs to the total loss declared by the assessee. I find the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee could not discharge the ingredients of section 68 of the IT Act. After going through the order of the CIT(A) I find the order is a reasoned one and does not call for any interference. I, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A). The various grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.