Megnum Powertech P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 5601/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 5601/Del/2017 M/s. Magnum Powertech, ND IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5601/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) M/s. Magnum Powertech Pvt. Ltd., 325, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Magnum Place, Sector – 3, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. PAN No. AABCF5920G (APPELLANT) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward : 16 (1), New Delhi. (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–33, New Delhi, dated 11.05.2017. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in the eyes of law and facts of the case by confirming addition u/s 68 of the Act, in respect receipt of share application money from 19 parties amounting to Rs. Assessee by : N o n e; Department by: Ms. Rinku Singh, [CIT] – D. R.; Date of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2022 2 ITA No. 5601/Del/2017 M/s. Magnum Powertech, ND 14,55,00,000/-, ignoring the fact that assessee has discharged its onus by establishing identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of the transaction. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) and AO has not considered the submissions of the assessee and proceeded on their own surmises, presumption and doubts. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has ignored the fact that identity and genuineness of the transaction is also established by the shareholders independently by filing response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that in this case no information from investigation wing has been received and thus went on wrong premise, by mentioning relevance of findings of investigation in its order. 5. That the Id. CIT(A) and AO erred in the eyes of law and facts if the case by ignoring the ratio of hon'ble Jurisdictional high court judgements and Apex court’s precedents applicable on the facts of the case. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. None appeared for the assessee, even after issuing several notices by R.P.A.D by the Registry to the last known address of the assessee and also through the Department of Revenue. Therefore, we are inclined to hear the Ld. DR and disposed of the Appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The assessee is aggrieved by order of CIT(A) dated 11/05/2017 which has confirmed the order of Ld. A.O wherein the Ld. A.O by made an addition of Rs. 14,55,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of share application money. 3 ITA No. 5601/Del/2017 M/s. Magnum Powertech, ND 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeal of the assessee made following observation “9.5.6 These shareholding companies are the creation of a certain opportunistic mindset they have dummy directors, exist only on paper, have no other business activity and consequently no profit making apparatus, no sources of income or accumulated profits from which they will generate the capacity to heavily invest in the shares of a fragile company. The companies do not demonstrate any profit motive in the context of the impugned transactions. Further, various other factors raise severe doubts about shareholder companies' capacity to pay. That the shareholder parties were not produced for examination before the Assessing Officer or before me seals the fate of these transactions. 9.6. After considering every submission of the appellant in the above paragraphs with due application of mind, 1 hold that the decision of the Assessing officer is arrived at by proper application of mind and after making the necessary enquiries and giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to present his case. 9.7. I further hold that the inevitable conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer is both logical as well as in accordance with law and consistent with judicial pronouncements by higher authorities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, reaching the other conclusion was not possible for the Assessing Officer. 9.8. I have no hesitation in holding that any attempt to intervene with the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer is Unnecessary, Undesirable, Unwarranted and Unproductive. 1 find no need to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer.” { 4 ITA No. 5601/Del/2017 M/s. Magnum Powertech, ND 7. The above finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is well reasoned, the assessee has not appeared even after giving giving sufficient opportunities either dispute or to contradict the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and no documentary evidence made available before us to negate the findings of the Ld. A.O or CIT(A). In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 6 are dismissed. 8. In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex-parte. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 02/08/2022 *R. N* Sr. PS Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 5601/Del/2017 M/s. Magnum Powertech, ND