J.H.V.Steel Ltd., Kolkata V. D.C.I.T.,Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2444/KOL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves J. H. V. Steels Ltd, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Kolkata, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 136,000,000 to the assessee's income, categorized as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had made these additions due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers of the equity shares issued, and the genuineness of the transactions. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not appear to contest the additions, leading the Tribunal to decide the case based on the materials available on record and the submissions of the Departmental Representative.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128250 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Įी संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.2444/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2012-13 J. H. V. Steels Ltd...........................................................................................Appellant 2/4, Azadgarh Regent Park, Kolkata-700040. [PAN: AACCJJ1814E] vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.......................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 18, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : February 07, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय ɮवारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) -1, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice issued several times. The notices were issued through registered post as well as through email. The notices issued through registered post have been received back unserved with the remark of the postal authority ‘left’, whereas, there is no response to the notices issued on email address of the assessee as provided in Form 36/opening form of appeal. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the I.T.A No.2444/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2012-13 J. H. V. Steels Ltd 2 present appeal. Therefore, we proceed to decide the present appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned CIT(A)-1, Kolkata has erred in law and fact in upholding addition equity shares issued by the assessee of Rs.136000000 u/s 68 as undisclosed income merely on the ground of conjecture, surmises and suspicion.” 4. At the outset, the ld. DR has pointed out to the impugned assessment order to submit that earlier one Shri Ramsagar Gupt, AR, had appeared on behalf of the assessee on 18.02.2015 but thereafter nobody appeared before the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment on the basis of material available on record. Since the assessee had failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction, the impugned additions were made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Our attention has also been invited to the impugned order of the CIT(A), whereby, it has been brought to our knowledge that though the assessee had not furnished the relevant details before the Assessing Officer yet the ld. CIT(A), giving afresh opportunity to the assessee to explain the transactions, had called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The contents of the said remand report are reproduced in para 10 of the impugned order of the CIT(A), wherein, the Assessing Officer has noted that only about the details of the share application money received by the assessee during the year but there was no mention of any further enquiry made by him. The Assessing Officer, in this respect, has mentioned that ‘on an opportunity given, the assessee I.T.A No.2444/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2012-13 J. H. V. Steels Ltd 3 has not elaborated any further”. The ld. CIT(A) considering the said report confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 6. We note that neither the assessee cooperated before the Assessing Officer nor in the remand proceedings called upon by the CIT(A) to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. Kolkata, the 7 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉÈटर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग[ /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सदèय /Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय /Judicial Member Dated: 07.02.2023. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. J. H. V. Steels Ltd 2. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches