IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2010/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. STARMARK SERVICES LLP, ERSTWHILE M/S. STARMARK SERVICES P LTD,. 16/1, 3 RD FLOOR, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008. PAN : AAACI7270H VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -12(3), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTERALIA , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONE OUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ADDING CREDITORS WRITTEN BACK OF RS. 6,79,754/- UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' THOUGH THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY SS PL WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS OR GAINS F ROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' AND ON WHICH TAX WAS ALSO PAID, THERE B Y RESULTING IN TAXATION OF SAME INCOME TWICE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ADDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OF RS.30,64,611/- UNDER THE H EAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' THOUGH THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY SS PL WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS OR GAI NS FROM BUSINESS AND ON WHICH TAX WAS ALSO PAID, THERE BY RESULTING IN TAXATION O F SAME INCOME TWICE. ITA NO. 2010/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 4. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADDING CREDITORS WRITTEN BACK OF RS. 6,79,754/- AND FOREX GAIN OF RS. 30,64,611/- UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES' WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS WHATSOEVER. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.11.2017 BU T NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE. AFTER CAREFUL PERUSAL OF IT, WE FIND NO MERIT THEREIN. WE ACCORD INGLY REJECT THE SAME AND PROCEED EX- PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE W AS HEARD. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF REVENUES CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ALL ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM IN DETAIL IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. BEING NOT CONVINC ED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. 4. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE MERITS OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BUT WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM H IS ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 17/11/2017 /NSHYLU/* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.