JAGMANDRI FINVEST P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7392/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8759 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69; 14A; 133(6); 69B; 69A

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 7393/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 7392/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2008-09) Jagmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd. D-108, Lotus Ansal Vihar New Link Road, Nr. Shimpoli Telephone Exchange, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092. Vs. ITO-9(2)(1) Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri S.N. Kabra Date of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of learned CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 read as under :- 1. The A.O. erred in disallowing Rs. 36,400/-u/s 14 A without establishing any nexus as required u/s 14 a (1) of the Act. 2. The A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 13,96,844/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain on purchase and sales of shares. 3. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 99,10,000/-being share application money whereas full particulars of the same were submitted during original assessment proceedings. 4. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 6,81,08,018/- out of total deposits into bank accounts Rs. 7,94,14,962/- by reducing Rs. 99,10,000/- and Rs. 13,96,844/- already assessed as per Gr. No. 2 and 3. 5. The A.O erred in making the additions of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s 69A and 69C by treating the amount received and paid to M/s Jay Kumar Infra Projects Ltd without appreciating facts & material in this regard. Jagmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 2 6. The A.O. erred in making additions of 24,00,000/- by treating unexplained investment u/s 69 B in respect of difference in share application money paid by the appellant and amount confirmed u/s 133(6) without giving adequate opportunity to reconcile the same . 3. The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 read as under :- 1. The A.O. erred in disallowing of Rs. 33,540/- u/s 14A without establishing any nexus as required u/s 14A (1) of the Act. 2. The A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 25,39,744/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain on purchase and sales of shares. 3. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 1,13,49,000/- u/s 56(1) of the Act being share premium received on allotment of shares. 4. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 12,61,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being share Capital issued during the year. 5. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 5,97,89,696/- out of total deposits into bank accounts Rs. 7,23,54,696/- by reducing Rs. 125,65,000/- and not Rs. 126,10,000/-on account of share capital and share premium already assessed as per Gr. no. 3 and 4. 6. The A.O. erred in making the additions of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69A and 69C by treating the amount received and paid to M/s Jay Kumar Infra Projects Ltd. 7. The A.O. erred in making additions of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- by treating unexplained investment u/s 69B where no reply was submitted by the parties to whom share application money was paid by the assessee company. 4. At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 849 days in filing these appeals. For ITA No. 7392/Mum/2016, in the condonation petition it is mentioned that the assessee company was in financial problem. Hence, appeal could not be filed on time. For ITA No. 7393/Mum/2016 it has been submitted that concerned person did not have requisite knowledge of the procedure. Jagmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 3 5. In the background of the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal, we note that these appeals are pending for five years. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the assessee. The explanation attributable for delay is not at all acceptable. Hence, these appeals are dismissed as time barred. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.2.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 16/02/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai