SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 519/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur, concerning the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The appeals primarily challenged the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which were treated as unexplained cash credits, and the application of a higher gross profit rate on undisclosed sales. The ITAT found merit in some of the assessee's contentions, leading to a remand of certain issues for fresh consideration, while upholding other additions and the application of the higher gross profit rate.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106821 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs ADIT, CPC, CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd., CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd., A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Divine Leasing, Shankar Industries vs CIT, C. Kant & Co vs CIT, Prakash Textile Agency vs CIT, Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd vs CIT, CIT vs United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., M.A UnneeriKutti vs CIT, CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd, Nizam Wool Agency vs CIT, Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT, CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, Kalsaria Diamonds Pvt Ltd vs Addi.CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L.ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Loose papers; Assessment record; Bogus Share capital; Validity of assessment; Prejudicial to interest; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 201; 271(1)(c); 251; 153A; 68; 208; 205; 234B; 246A; 260A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur- 492 001, C.G. V s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur, New C.R. Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)- 492 001 PAN: AALCS5029H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn arises from the orders of Assessing Officer. The details of impugned orders assailed before us, are as under: 2 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Appeals No. AY’s Ld. CIT(A) order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, dated Details of Ld. AO’s order ITA No. 452/RPR/2024 2011-12 07.08.2024 ITO Ward-2(1), Raipur, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 19.12.2018 IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 2011-12 07.08.2024 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur, u/s 153A dated 30.09.2021 ITA 519/RPR/2024 2012-13 08.08.2024 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur, u/s 153A dated 30.09.2021 IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024 2013-14 08.08.2024 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur, u/s 153A dated 30.09.2021 Condonation of delay: 2. On perusal of the case records, it is noticed that the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation on account of delay in filing of appeal No. ITA No. 452/RPR/2024 by 11 days and Appeal No. ITA 519/RPR/2024 by 36 days, as pointed out by the registry. To remove this defect the assessee had furnished the applications for condonation of delay along with affidavit to explain the sufficient cause on account of which the delay was occasioned. 3 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 3. On a thoughtful consideration of the facts and reasons for delay as explained in the condonation petition by the assessee, which are confronted to the other side i.e., Ld. CIT-DR. On perusal of the same, we find substance in the request of the assessee that the delay was on account of justifiable reasons, we find it appropriate to condone the delay of 11 and 36 days involved in the aforesaid appeals, accordingly, the delay in filing of aforesaid appeals are condoned. 4. All the aforesaid appeals pertain to a single assessee having interconnected, identical and interlinked issues, therefore, all these appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of under this common order. 5. ITA No. 452/RPR/2024 has been taken as the lead case for deliberations, wherein our observations and decision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the covered grounds raised in the remaining appeals. Besides that, the grounds having controversies other than the issues covered by the lead case shall be dealt with separately. 6. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 452/RPR/2024 For AY 2011-12, challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.08.2024, arises 4 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur from order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for AY, passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur dated 19.12.2018, are extracted as under: ITA No. 452/RPR/2024 AY: 2011-2012 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,27,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of share capital / share premium received by the assessee company by wrongly treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.31,70,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained squared up loan . 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the re-opening proceedings are bad in law and, as such, the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is liable to be quashed. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to compute proper interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 6.1 At the outset, Shri Subhas Agrawal, Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee have assailed the issue arising from the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), that the said order was passed on ex-parte basis. The same was not justified as the facts and circumstances of the case are not properly appreciated on the basis of material available on record even if the assessee was not appeared on the dates of hearings. 5 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 6.2 On this issue, it was further submitted that even if the assessee’s conduct before the Ld. CIT(A) is considered to be evasive on account of assessee’s non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) on the dates of hearings fixed. The issues raised by the assessee are not dealt with properly on the merits, moreover the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for which all the relevant facts and details are available on the assessment records. The issues were decided only on the basis of absence of assessee, stating that the appellant is not interested in perusing the appeal, such observations of the Ld. CIT(A) could not be considered to be judicious, just and proper in the eyes of law, whereas the reopening in the case of assessee was totally against the mandate of law, which can be gathered from the documents / evidence like reasons to believe, approval u/s 151 etc., therefore, the assessment framed was to be quashed. 6.3 Per contra, Shri S. L. Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR representing the revenue submitted that assessee had adopted evasive approach before the Ld. CIT(A) to prolong the litigation. Under such circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the issue on the basis of facts available with him and in absence of any contention raised by the assessee qua the issue before him, he was 6 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur constrained to pass the order, therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be unjustified, the same deserves to be sustained. 6.4 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) qua the legal issue raised by the assessee before him. We find that all the material evidences to decide the issue regarding validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 are available with the Ld. CIT(A) and justified / reasonable observations are expected from the Ld. CIT(A), however the decision of Ld. CIT(A) was entirely based on assesssee’s non-appearance before him, whereas the same should have been on the basis of material available on record. Under such circumstances, we find it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue, after thoroughly considering the facts available on record, with a speaking order qua the issues raised by the assessee. Needless to say, in the set aside appellate proceedings, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunities of being heard. The assessee herein is also directed to be vigilant enough to attend the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) in the set aside appellate proceedings, failing which the appellate authority would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. 7 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 6.5 Our aforesaid view is duly fortified by the principle of law laid drawn by Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) reported in [2016] 240 taxman 133, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “…………It is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(l)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it dear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply dear from the Section 251(l)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to at the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. 8 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 6.6 In view of aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in absence of deliberation on the legal issues as well as issues on merits before the Ld. CIT(A) based on material available on record, in the interest of justice. 6.7 As we have restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication the issue raised by the assessee, therefore, we refrain ourselves to deliberate and deal with the individual grounds of this appeal. 6.8 In result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 452/RPR/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Now, we shall be adverting to the issues raised before us in the remaining appeals i.e., IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024, ITA No. 519/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024, arising from the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) passed in consideration to the subject assessments completed u/s 153A of the Act under a common order dated 30.09.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur. 9 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 for AY 2011-12, are extracted as under: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 153A is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of share capital / share premium received by the assessee company by wrongly treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w. section 115BBE of the Act. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no addition u/s 68 r.w. section 115BBE could be made in regard to the share capital / premium raised in the assessment framed u/s 153A inasmuch as no incriminating material was found in the course of search in connection therewith. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to apply a reasonable G.P rate as against the G.P rate of 8% applied by the A.O. on undisclosed sales, thereby, wrongly confirming the addition of Rs.36,43,972/- over and above the declared G.P. of Rs.21,83,330/- in the return filed u/s 153A. 5. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,83,47,607/- made by the A.O. on account of addition made in the earlier assessment framed u/s 144 r.w. section 147 even when the assessee company has filed an appeal which was pending at the time of assessment proceedings. (b) For that, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid addition of Rs. 4,83,47,607/- amounted to double addition, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to compute proper interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per law. 10 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 7. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 8.1 The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide application dated 12.12.2024: 1. For that the A.O. was not justified in passing a consolidated / common order for A.Y: 2011-2012 to 2019-2020 in violation of the mandate of sec. 153D of the Act, thereby, vitiating the entire proceedings and demand raised for the instant year. 2. (a) For that the assessment framed and / or demand raised for the instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority. (b) Without prejudice to the above, the assessment framed and/ or demand raised is vitiated in law and is nullity inasmuch as approval has been granted in a manner which is not in consonance with law. 8.2 Briefly stated, in the case of present assessee, a Search & Seizure action 132 was conducted in the business and residential premises of Sarthak Group of cases along with in the premises of the assessee on 26.11.2019. Consequently, notice u/s 153A of the I T Act was issued on 25.01.2021 requesting the assessee to file its return of income, in response a Return of Income was filed on 23.09.2021. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A various issues are discussed, queries were raised and response were furnished by the assessee, thereafter the assessment 11 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur order was completed for AY 2011-12 to 2019-20, with the following additions and resulting assessed income: 12 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.3 First, we shall be dealing with the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 for AY 2011-12, challenging the validity of approval granted u/s 153D, being the same has been passed under a consolidated / common order for AY 2011-12 to 2019-20. The dispute raised based on such contention was that assessment framed, or demand raised for the instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority, as the approval granted in a manner which is not inconsonance with the law. 8.4 The aforesaid issue raised under the additional ground has been discussed and decided by us in assessee’s own case in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024 vide our order dated 16.01.2025. Our observations and findings therein are extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience and reference: 14 Additional Ground No. 1: Challenging the validity of consolidated / common order for AY 2011-12 to 2019-20 in violation of mandate of section 153D of the Act. 14.1 On this issue, as per the application for admission of additional ground, the contention raised by the assessee was that the consolidated approval granted under section 153D is not in the manner in consonance with the law. It is contended that the 13 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur assessment framed / the demand raised for instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority. 14.2 On this issue, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee shall not be admitted, as the additional ground should only be for the issues raising the question of law where it is necessary to consider that question to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Whereas in present case the issue raised does not constitute any question of law, which is necessary to assess the tax liability of the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR placed her reliance on the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs ADIT, CPC reported in (2024) 164 taxmann.com 498 (Ahd. Trib.), dated 16.07.2024, while dealing with such an objection by the department, the tribunal has held as under: 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in that case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from facts as found by the authorities below. The Court further held that the question of law may be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Thus, it is clear from this decision that any question of law may be allowed to be raised only in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. So far as the correct assessment of the tax liability in this case is concerned, the issue involved in this case is already settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) and the grounds taken by the assessee on the merits of the case stand dismissed. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the submission of the Revenue that this is not a fit case where the legal grounds as raised by the assessee are relevant to consider the question of correct assessment of tax liability of the case. The only objective of the assessee behind raising these legal grounds is to obviate the correct tax liability. Nevertheless, since the issue of limitation 14 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur and natural justice, while processing the return, has been raised in the legal grounds, we deem it proper to consider these grounds on merits as well. 14.3 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the case law relied upon by the revenue. As in the case referred to by the Ld. CIT-DR, the issue raised under additional ground was also covered by certain legal grounds by the assessee, therefore, those are dealt with separately, whereas the issue in present case has been decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur in a recent decision in the case of Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon Vs. ACIT, Central-2, Raipur in ITA no. 2,3,4,5 & 6 /RPR/2024 dated 26.12.2024, wherein the findings of Tribunal are as under: 7.4 Regarding additional ground no. 1 & 2 in ITA No. 5/RPR/2024 for AY 2013-14, raised by the assessee challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) and approval u/s 153D, stating that the order of assessment and approval are granted under a combined / consolidated order and combined / common approval is not in accordance with the mandate of law prescribed under the impugned sections of the Act. We do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the assessee, as the issue is covered by the observations of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, TAXC No.76/2024, dated 10.04.2024. 7.5 The Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order, after deliberating upon the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range Central, Raipur, had observed, that as the A.O. in the case before them had obtained a prior approval of the Jt. CIT, therefore, the mandate of Section 153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter granting the approval revealed the subjective satisfaction that was arrived at based on the documents that were produced before the Jt. CIT. It was further observed, that on a perusal of the language of the approval letter, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind as the approval need not be a detailed assessment order. The Hon’ble High 15 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Court after pressing into service Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 7.6 As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court had looked into the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur and had rejected the assessee’s claim that the said approval was granted without application of mind by the latter, therefore, we respectfully follow the same. 7.7 Accordingly, as the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide letter dated 16.12.2016 marked as F.No.Jt.CIT(C)/RPR/153D/2016-17/361 (copy placed before us) had, inter alia, granted the approval in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, we, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no merit in the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR, thus, reject the same. The validity of combined / consolidated assessment order, therefore, also acceptable following the analogy drawn in the case of Hitesh Golecha (supra). Thus, the additional ground of appeal 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 14.4 Respectfully following the decision in the aforesaid case, wherein a view has been formed by us, which is duly supported by the principle laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional HC, vide judgment in the case of Hitesh Golecha vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, TAXC No.76/2024, dated 10.04.2024, therefore, we are inclined to follow a view adopted by us, which in absence of any further clarification or any decision contrary to the aforesaid decision by any higher forum i.e., by the Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot be deviated. Under such circumstances, we do not find any substance in the additional ground raised by the assessee, thus, we dismiss the same. 16 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.5 Considering the aforesaid view adopted by us, as the facts and circumstances inter alia the issue in present case are identical, common and interlinked, with no further advancement of information or explanations on behalf of the assessee, thus, our findings and observation therein, on the issue are squarely covers the controversy raised through impugned additional ground, in the present case, accordingly, the view adopted by us in ITA no. 513/RPR/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis in appeal No. IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024, also. Resultantly, the additional ground raised by Ld. AR, on behalf of the assessee, stands dismissed. 8.6 Regarding Ground of appeal No. 3(b), Ld. AR, sought the liberty to not press the same, for which he endorsed against the said ground in the appeal memo with his signatures to this effect. Ld. CIT-DR, per contra, has not objected to the request of Ld. AR. Accordingly, permission is granted to withdraw ground no. 3 (b) of the assessee’s appeal, therefore, the impugned ground has been dismissed as not pressed. 8.7 Ground No. 3(a): Regarding confirming the addition of Rs. 3.25 Crore made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act, treating the same as unexplained cash credit on account of share capital / share premium received by the assessee company. 17 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.8 While making the aforesaid addition, Ld. AO had made exhaustive observations, stating the facts of the issue inter alia the details of shareholders and amount received as share capital / share premium during the FYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 (Relevant to AY 2011-12 to 2013-14). Ld. AO discussed the modus operandi of shell companies, involvement of assessee company in the bogus transactions adopting the same analogy through which the assessee company had routed its own cash under various layers of transactions through cheque / NEFT / RTGS, through Kolkata based shell / paper companies, which after liquidating their investment brings money back to books of the assessee company. After deliberating on the issue, relying on various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO, had made the addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit received by the assessee in the guise of share capital / share premium. The relevant observations and conclusion drawn by Ld. AO are extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity and completeness of facts: 4.16. Vide the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 21 July, 2021 the assessee was asked to produce as \"to explain as to why in absence of justified explanation with documentary evidences, the share capital and premium received from the various shell/paper company should not be considered you unaccounted money routed through the said shell company and accordingly added to your income for the relevant A. Ys as you undisclosed income.\" 18 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 4.17. In reply filed vide the letter dated 25.09.2021, the assessee submitted as \"The above share capital have been duly added in the order passed u/s 143(3), the copy of which is duly submitted for your kind reference in our submission marked \"Reply to Part-A\". Out of the total share capital, Capital received amounting to Rs.1.81 Cr had not been assessed relating to A.Y 2013-14. Sir In A.Y 2013-14, unaccounted income had been duly declared by the assessee amount to Rs.. Sir the income declared is the source and the share capital received is the application in relation to the same. Addition of both source and application will lead to double taxation for the assessee. Sir it is request to kindly not add the same since it will led to double taxation and will not implement justice for the assessee.\" 4.18. The contention of the assessee company ls considered and accepted. After careful examination of the documents/loose papers found and seized from the various premises, statement recorded during the search and seizure proceedings and post search investigation and considering the replies filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings is amply clear that the assessee ls the ultimate beneficiary of the amounts received from Kolkata base paper and shell companies in the form of share capital, share premium, share application money and unsecured loan. 4.19. \"Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the fncome of the assessee of that previous year: 19 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- 1. (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and 2. (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10.\" With effect from Assessment Year 2013-14, the Act has been amended to specifically include the receipt of share capital under the ambit of Section 68. However in the case of Subhlakshi Vanijya P Ltd., 60 taxmann.com 60 (Kol Trib) it was held that amendment to section 68 by insertion of proviso casting onus on closely held company to explain source of share capital is clarify and hence applicable with retrospective effect. It has also been held that where assessee filed return offering undisclosed income and issued share capital at huge premium, while making large investments in companies at much higher price than their real worth the AO did not make any enquiry regarding same orders being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, Commissioner was empowered to revise assessment order. The expression used in the section clearly lays the burden on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the fund. The extent of the power of the Assessing 20 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Officer while considering the materials produced by the assessee is very wide. It is a question of examining as to whether the apparent is real. Section 68 clearly permits an Assessing Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is empowered to lift the corporate veil and examine the real nature of the transaction. It is for the assessee to prove and establish the identity of the investors. their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction which is a principal ingredient. Apart from identification of the shareholders, there should be creditworthiness and also genuineness of the transaction. The furnishing of material is not sufficient. It is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to locate the exact source of the credits. The onus lies on the assessee to offer an explanation to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer about tt,e nature and sources of such sums so credited. In the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar 34 ITR 807 (SC), the SC held that where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source. Further in the case of McDowell & Co. ltd., has categorically held that it is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges. The relevant extract is as under - 'So far as the contention that it is open to eve,yone to so arrange his affairs as to reduce the brunt of taxation to the minimum, was concerned, the tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Co/ourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to 21 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by restoring to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges. Courts are now concerning themselves not merely with the genuineness of a transaction, but with the intended effect of it for fiscal purposes. No one can now get away with a tax avoidance project with the mere statement that there is nothing illegal about it.\" Thus the reading of the said section clearly stipulates that the onus Hes on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction that is credited in his books of account. The landmark judgment elucidating the nature of onus cast u/s 68 on an assessee is that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v P. Mohankala 291 !TR 278 wherein the Supreme Court while examining the provisions of sections 68 has held that when the explanation offered by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory and proper that will be a case of offering no explanation by the assessee. Further the SC in its earlier decision in Sumati Dayal v. CIT ( 214 /TR 801), has clearly laid down the preposition of law that in appreciation documents, and evidence on record, the Court cannot be oblivious to the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case and human probabilities. This was the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(SC) wnerein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed :- \"It is trite that an apparent must be considered to be real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital In a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some recitals made in a document either executed by him or executed in his favour then the door will be left wide open to evade tax. A little probing was sufficient in 22 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur t e present case to show that the apparent was not the real. The taxing authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents.\" There are several judgments of the High Court which have clearly laid down the principle that the onus lay with the assessee in section 68 of the Act. The word \"identity\" was meant to be the condition or fact of a person or thing being that specified unique person or thing. The identification of the person would include the place of work, the fact that it was actually carrying on business and recognition of the said company fn the eyes of public. Merely producing PAN number or assessment particulars did not establish the identity of the person. The actual and true identity of the person or a company was the business undertaken by them. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi) has endorsed the aforesaid proposition as the correct and true legal position with respect to the establishment of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness u/s 68 of the Act. PAN numbers are allotted on the basis of applications without actual de facto verification of the identity or ascertaining active nature of business activity. PAN is a number which is allotted and helps the Revenue keep track of the transactions. PAN number is relevant but cannot be blindly and without considering surrounding circumstances be treated as sufficient to discharge the onus,even when payment is through bank account. Thus, it can be concluded that the identities had been only proved on paper, i.e., in form of neutral documents like PAN number, ITR, Registrar of Companies registration, but without full details as to the actual business activities 23 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur undertaken by these creditors, the reason why these persons had made investment in a private limited company etc. In Nova Promoters & Fin/ease (342 /TR 169), it was held that in view of the link between the entry providers and incriminating evidence, mere filing of PAN number, acknowledgement of income tax returns of the entry provider, bank account statements etc. was not sufficient to discharge the onus. On the question of creditworthiness and genuineness, it was highlighted that the money no doubt was received through banking channels, but did not reflect actual genuine business activity of the cash creditors. The share subscribers did not have their own profit making apparatus and were not involved in business activity. They merely rotated money, which was coming through the bank accounts, which means deposits by way of cash and issue of cheques. The bank accounts, therefore, did not reflect their creditworthiness or even genuineness of the transactjon. The assessee, do not give any share-dividend or interest: to the said entry operators/subscribers. The profit motive normal in case of investment by any share-holder was entirely absent. Any person, who would invest money or give loan would certainly seek return or income as consideration. These are undoubtedly relevant and material facts for ascertaining creditworthiness and genuineness of the-transactions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N Tarika Properties Investment (P) Ltd (2013) 40 taxmann.com 525 (Delhi HC), the HC held that \"We have heard the Id counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the orders of the CIT(A) and the ITAT in deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 68 are perverse and are clearly unsustainable.\". 24 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur The Delhi High Court In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (350 /TR 407) had confirmed the addition on account of unexplained share application money u/s 68 and had observed on the issue of establishing the creditworthiness of the shareholders by the assessee as under: \"That though the difficulty that may be faced by an assessee to unimpeachably establish the creditworthiness of the share applicants, mere furnishing of the copies of the bank accounts of the applicants was not sufficient to prove their creditworthiness. There must be some positive evidence to show the nature and source of the resources of the share applicant himself and, therefore, it was necessary for him to come before the Assessing Officer and confirm his sources from which he subscribed to the capital.\" Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a latter decision in Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. ( 333 /TR 119/ 198) held as under : \"We are of the view that ratio laid down in Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 is applicable only in those cases where the assessee is a limited company and the shares were quoted in the stock exchange. But whenever the issue is subscribed without quoting it on the stock exchange by a limited or private limited company, the presumption is very strong against the assessee that subscription is available only to the closely connected persons of the assessee. Once the inference is against the assessee that the issue is subscribed by its closely connected person, the onus is upon the assessee to prove the identity of the subscribers and their creditworthiness.\" In another latest decision in UP Bone Mills India Limited and Vij'ay Power Generators Ltd. v. /TO [2009] 180 Taxman 102 (Delhi) (Mag.), identically held that identity and credit worthiness of share applicants was not proved, therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act was justified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 25 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur of Vij'ay Kumar Ta/war v. CIT [2011] 330 /TR 1 /196 Taxman 1361(2010] 8 taxmann.com 624 (S.C.) on the issue u/s 68 read with section 260A decided in favour of the revenue. The above findings in forgoing paragraphs make it an undisputable case for addition of the amounts of share application mohey received by the company as cash credits u/s 68 in the hands of the respective concerns of the group. Following the decisions of different courts in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98, Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289 (Cal), CIT v. Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 300 (Cal) and CIT v. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 623 (Cal) etc, the law is now absolutely clear that unless the assessee is able to establish the identity of the subscribers, their creditworthiness as well as genuineness of the transaction will be regarded as non genuine for the purposes of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also well settled law that onus of proving credits in its book of accounts lies squarely on the assessee and such proof consists of proving the identity of the subscriber or creditor, capacity of such creditor or subscriber to make payment and also to prove the genuineness of the transaction. It is only when the assessee discharges this primary onus, that onus shifts to the Department. Merely establishing the identity of the creditor is not sufficient. This is the ratio in a large number of decislons including:  Shankar Industries vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689(Cal);  C. Kant & Co vs CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal);  Prakash Textile Agency vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890(Cal);  Oriental Wire Industries P. ltd vs CIT(1981) 131 ITR 688(Cal); 26 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur  CIT vs United Commercial & lndustires Co.(P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599(Cal)  M.A UnneeriKutti vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150(Ker), Special Leave Petition dismissed by the Supreme Court (1993) 201 ITR (St.) 23 (SC);  CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470(Cal) The manner of payment by the account payee cheque is also not sacrosanct and this cannot make a bogus transaction as genuine one:  CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd 208 ITR 465, 470, 471(Cal)  Cf. Nizam Wool Agency vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318, 320(AII). The below mentioned quote is the observation of H.on'ble Justice B.N. Kripal while delivering the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing 299 ITR 268 Delhi. The pernicious practice referred to by justice Kripal, of late has acquired such enormous proportion that effort for excoriation is found wanting. Modus Operandi: \"There cannot be two opinions on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment in the share capital of a company must be firmly excoriated by the Revenue.\" There has been a mushrooming growth of professional entry operators in Kolkata who provide accommodation entry for such share application money for a. commission ranging from 2% to 10% of the share application money given. The commission rate for providing such accommodation entries at Kolkata are reported to be cheapest in the country which is why a major portion of Black Money from throughout the country is routed via the paper companies of the 27 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Kolkata entry operators and are shown as genuine share capital in the beneficiary companies. The broad principle emerging out of the above cases can be summed up as under:- 1. The Assessing officer has the powers to investigate the identity of the shareholder to satisfy that they exist. 2. The genuineness of the investment has to be examined to the extent that the shareholders have invested the money. The corporate veil can be lifted and argument that the shareholders and co porate are two different legal entities can no longer hold good. lf the assessee wished to convert his unaccounted money in the form of share capital, the court will not remain silent. In such investigation during the course of search and post search and during the course of assessment proceedings, the worthlessness of the subscriber companies have been established by marshalling their financial data. 4.20. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed in forgoing paragraphs that all the above indicate that the share capital, share premium and unsecured loan has been introduced in the name of Kolkata based paper companies are not genuine and not in existence in real. The above mentioned shareholder company was exist only on paper and to provide entry to the beneficiaries by liquidating their bogus investments. They do have their PAN and file their return of income; however, their actual business was to provide accommodation entries. Further, the introduction of share capital, share premium and unsecured loan of beneficiaries non-existence and non-creditworthiness of share applicants, non- genuineness of transactions of share application money and unsecured loan, it 28 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur follows that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transaction is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor stands discharged in all cases if payment is made through banking channels. Certificate of incorporation of company, payment by banking channel, etc. cannot in all cases tantamount to satisfactory discharge of onus. It has been elaborately established in the preceding paras that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and hence the share application money/share capital/Share Premium and, unsecured loans introduced by Kolkata based paper shell companies credited in its books are treated as unaccounted income u/s 68 of the Act. The year wise details of unaccounted income are as under: Further, vide the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the I.T Act, 1961 dated 19.12.2018 for A.Y 2011-12 passed by ITO-2(1), Raipur, addition of Rs. 3,27,00,000/- made on account of share capital, share premium and share application money. Order passed by ITO-2(1), Raipur for AY 2011-12 is hereby sustained. Vide the order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2019 for A.Y 2012-13, passed by ITO-2(1), Raipur 29 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- made on account of share capital, share premium and share applica.tl6n money. Order passed by ITO-2(1), Raipur for AY 2012- 13 is hereby sustained and remaining amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the act. Share capital/ premium receive during FY 2012-13 pertaining to AY 2013-14 amounting to Rs 2,11,00,000/- is hereby added back u/s 68 of the act. Penalty Proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14 are initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of return. 8.9 The aforesaid addition was challenged by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), however, assessee remain absent before the First Appellate Authority, thus, this issue raised by the assessee was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) with the following observations: During the appeal proceeding, the appellant has not filed any written submission in support of the receipt of the share capital and share premium. The appellant has shown that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. Under these circumstances, in my opinion the appellant is not interest in the appeal. On merit also, the assessee has failed to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors during the assessment proceedings. On the other hand during search action detailed investigation was done to prove the entry of share capital and share premium a sham transaction. The introduction of share capital, share premium and unsecured loan of beneficiaries non-existence and non- creditworthiness of share applicants, non- genuineness of transaction of share application money and unsecured loan, it follows that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transaction is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels 30 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor stands discharged in all cashes if payment is made through banking channels. Certificated of incorporation of company, payment by banking channel, etc, cannot in all cases tantamount to satisfactory discharge of onus. It has been elaborately established in the preceding paras that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and hence the share application money/share capital/ share premium and unsecured loans introduced by Kolkata based paper shell companies. In view of these facts, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed as it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. It is the duty of the appellant to make necessary arrangements for effective representation on the appointed date. Mere filing of an appeal is not enough, rather it requires effective hearing also. Therefore, the appeal is found liable for dismissal. This view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) In the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Ho/kar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) Hon'ble MP High Court has held as under:- 4. As held in Jamunadas v. CST [1993) 38 MPLJ 462 (MP) and the common order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 303 of 1986--B. R. Phosphate v. CST and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 304 of 1986--B. R. Phosphate v. CST by this court on November 6, 1995, this court is not bound to answer the reference. In Jamunadas v. CST [1993] 38 MPLJ 462, it is held as under : \" For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer 31 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the Department quantified at Rs. 150.\" (ii) In the case of Kalsaria Diamonds Pvt Ltd vs Addi.CIT in ITA NO 1783/Muml2012 dated 05.09.2013, Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble MP High court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar (supra) has held as under:- \"2. Earlier this appeal was fixed for hearing on 21/3/2013, when nobody attended on behalf of the assessee, therefore, as per directions of the Tribunal the matter was adjourned to 05/09/2013 and notice was directed to be issued through RPAD. Accordingly, notice was sent through RPAD at the address given in Form No.36. However, the said notice was received back from the postal authorities with the remark \"Unclaimed -Return to Sender\". The assessee has not intimated any change of address to the registry. Adjournment application has also not been filed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we presume that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Following the decision of the Tribunal reported in the case of CIT vs. Mu/tip/an India (P) Ltd.38 /TD 320 (Del) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 /TR 480 (M.P) we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine.\" No explanation has been furnished by the appellant at this stage on the findings and conclusion of the Ld. AO. In absence of any explanation & on the basis of facts gathered and discussed by the Ld. AO, considering entire facts in the assessment order. I find that Ld. AO is justified in assessing the total income of the appellant as discussed above. when repeated opportunity in this regard was provided clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. In these circumstances, I have no option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the appellant. Respectfully, following 32 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur the view taken in the case cited above, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, appeal on these grounds are dismissed. 8.10 Before us, Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv., representing the assessee (in short, Ld. AR”), submitted that an amount of Rs.3,27,00,000/- was already added to the income of the assessee in the original assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 19.12.2018 for the AY 2011-12 by ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, as evident from the observations of Ld. AO, while making the aforesaid addition, the same cannot be made again, otherwise the same would constitute taxing the same income twice. Ld. AR drew our attention to para 4.17 (page of the Assessment order (extracted supra), wherein assessee had clearly submitted before Ld. AO that “the above share capital have been duly added in the order passed u/s 143(3)”, it is further clarified before the Ld. AO that in AY 2013-14 unaccounted income has been duly declared by the assessee amounting to Rs….., the income declared is the source and the share capital received is the application in relation to the same. Addition of both source of application will lead to double taxation of assessee. Such contention was raised by the Ld. AR, however, the same was not substantiated with any corroborative evidence in the form of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and regarding the declarations made by the assessee. With aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR further argued that the addition for the amount which was already declared by 33 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur the assessee as its income should not have been taxed twice, accordingly the addition of Rs.3.25 lacs was uncalled for and under wrong impression has been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, thus, the same is liable to be deleted. 8.11 Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR, vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the subject addition on account of unexplained share capital was an addition which was earlier made in the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I T Act, 1961 dated 19.12.2018 for AY 2011-12 passed by ITO-2(1), Raipur for Rs.3,27,00,000/- and the Ld. AO in the impugned order u/s 153A dated 30.09.2021 had only sustained the same after elaborately discussing the facts of issue, which even after further opportunities could not be substantiated or explained by the assessee. Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that only a clerical mistake has happened while sustaining the addition that the amount of Rs.3,27,00,000/- was erroneously picked up at Rs.3,25,00,000/- due to our side, therefore, the addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- deserves to be sustained with enhancement at Rs. 3,27,00,000/-. 8.12 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the contentions raised by the parties. Admittedly, the 34 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur issue of unexplained money received by the assessee in the garb of share capital / premium / application money was discussed at length by Ld. AO. Undoubtedly, sufficient opportunities are afforded to the assessee to explain the basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions, however, the assessee fails in discharging the onus cast upon it to satisfy such conditions. The contention by Ld. AR that such unexplained investments received by the assessee are declared by the assessee, which was raised before Ld. AO and such contentions are noted at para 4.17, cannot be accepted in totality as nothing corroborative could be brought on record to support such claim, at the same time there was no whisper in the assessment order dealing with and dislodging such contentions, further, Ld. CIT(A) also had not commented on such claim of the assessee emerging from the assessment order, therefore, in all fairness the controversy raised in ground no. 3(b) in the assessee’s appeal qualifies to be restore back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings in accordance with law. In result, Ground No. 3(b) of the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 35 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.13 Ground No. 4: Regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 36,43,972/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unaccounted income of the assessee by estimating the Gross Profit of the assessee at 8% of the unaccounted sales. 8.14 The aforesaid issue raised under the grounds of appeal no. 4 is a covered issue, as the same has been discussed and decided by us in assessee’s own case in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024 vide our order dated 16.01.2025. Our observations and findings on the subject therein, which under the similar facts and circumstances qua the issue shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case, are extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience and reference: 16. Ground No. 3: Regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 44,78,935/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unaccounted income of the assessee by estimating the Gross Profit of the assessee at 8% of the unaccounted sales. 16.1 On this issue while making the addition Ld. AO has observed that in view of submissions of the assessee, incriminating documents/ loose papers / data found from laptop, hard disk and other digital evidence found and seized from the various premises, statement recorded during the search and seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under: 36 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 16.2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, assessee remain absent before the Ld. CIT(A) on various occasions, when the matter was fixed for hearing. Ld. CIT(A) thereafter had deliberated on the issue in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee based on material available on records. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) after deliberating upon the merits of the issues are that “I find that Ld. AO is justified in assessing the total income of the appellant as discussed above, when repeated opportunity in this regard 37 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur was provided clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. In this circumstance, I have no option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the grounds of appeal of appellant.” 16.3 Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision with the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal, which is under consideration before us. 16.4 Ld. CIT-DR, on the issue of addition by the Ld. AO by estimating the profit on unaccounted sale @8%, had submitted that the assessee remains non-responsive before the First Appellate Authority, as also before the Tribunal during the proceedings in the present case. It seems that the assessee has no plausible explanation as to why the estimation of profit on unaccounted sale should not be 8% and the same shall be taken at 5% as declared by the assessee. In absence of any response by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue after thoroughly deliberating upon the merits of the issue. In view of such facts and circumstances, the order Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be sustained. 16.5 We have considered the submissions of the revenue and material available on record. On perusal of the orders of revenue authorities, it is observed that the assessee had objected to the addition by estimation of GP @8%, whereas the assessee had declared the GP at 5%. Ld. AO had not found the estimation of 5% to be justifiable, therefore, the same has been raised by another 3%. The issue has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), however, there was no representation by the assessee on 06 occasions when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, we do not find any extraneous exercise of powers by the Ld. CIT(A), whereas Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal based on facts on record available before him after deliberating thoroughly at length on the merits of the issue, to rest the prolonged litigations pending before him. As the conduct of assessee before us is also observed to be evasive and of a non-compliant, as the group matters of the assessee were fixed for hearing on various occasion, but the assessee remains non-responsive or has represented only for seeking of adjournments for one or another reasons, which are not found to be reasonable. We, 38 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur thus, in terms of aforesaid observations are of the considered opinion that there was no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in absence of any plausible explanation by the assessee to dislodge the same. We, thus, uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A), with no interference on our part. In result, ground no. 3 of the assessee stands dismissed. 8.15 At the threshold, on the issue of estimation of GP rate, no further explanation, clarification or evidence to dislodge our aforesaid view or the findings of Ld. AO or Ld. CIT(A) are brought on record by Ld. AR of the assessee, we, therefore, are of the considered view that the issue is already covered by our earlier order in the assessee’s own case in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024 (supra), therefore, our findings therein shall squarely apply in the present case, accordingly, ground no. 4 of the present appeal stands rejected. 8.16 Ground No. 5: Regarding confirming the addition of Rs.4,83,47,607/- on account of addition made in the earlier assessment year framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 even when the assessee company has filed an appeal which was pending at the time of assessment proceedings. 39 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.17 At the outset, it was the submission by Ld. AR that the aforesaid amount pertains to assessment year 2012-13, and the appeal against the said addition was pending, therefore, the addition made cannot sustain in the eyes of law, the same is liable to be deleted. 8.18 On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the addition was made by the Ld. AO in the impugned assessment order u/s 153A, just to keep the issue alive in the matter and have made a noting in the assessment order itself that the impugned addition / disallowance was made during the scrutiny assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by the Ld. AO Ward-2(1), Raipur. While sustaining the said addition inadvertently Ld. AO had added the amount in AY 2011-12 instead of AY 2012-13 originally wherein the said addition was made. It was the submission that the mistake occasioned was just a Bonafide error on the part of Ld. AO, which could have been corrected by the Ld. CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings before him, who has the powers coterminous with that of Ld. AO, however, such facts could not surfaced before the First Appellate Authority in absence of assessee’s non cooperation and absence on all the occasions when the matter was fixed for hearing. Considering such factual position, it was the prayer by Ld. CIT-DR that the matter deserves to be set aside to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary action and fresh adjudication. 40 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.19 After having given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both the parties and on perusal of material on record, we observe that the addition on account of unexplained expenses to the tune of Rs. 4,83,47,607/- was made by the then Assessing Officer i.e., ITO-2(1), Raipur, while making the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 for AY 2012-13. In the impugned assessment u/s 153A, Ld. AO had made the reference of aforesaid addition and for the sake of keeping the issue alive had sustained the same by adding the subject addition in AY 2011-12, in the consolidated additions table for AY 2011-12 to 2019-20. Ostensibly, it was an error on the part of Ld. AO, which could have been corrected by the Ld. CIT(A) while framing the appellate order, being having powers coterminous with that of the Assessing Officers. On this issue, we concur with the contention raised by the Ld. CIT-DR that since the assessee had not put up any appearance or had not furnished any response before the Ld. CIT(A), this issue remains unattended, and the appeal of assessee was dismissed on exparte basis. Considering the totality of facts, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, Ground No. 5 of the instant appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 41 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 8.20 Ground No. 1, 2, 6 & 7: These grounds are general, academic and consequential in nature, which do not call for any separate adjudication, the same, therefore, are disposed of with no categorical findings. 8.21 In result, appeal of assessee in IT(SS)A No.12 is partly allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 9. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 519/RPR/2024 For AY: 2012 – 2013, are extracted as under: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 153A is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,45,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of share capital / share premium received by the assessee company by wrongly treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no addition u/s 68 could be made in regard to the share capital / premium raised in the assessment framed u/s 153A inasmuch as no incriminating material was found in the course of search in connection therewith. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have directed the A.O. to apply a reasonable G.P rate as against the G.P rate of 8% applied by the A.O. on undisclosed sales, thereby, wrongly confirming the addition of Rs. 8,46,449/- over and above the declared G.P. of Rs. 5,07,I60/- in the return filed u/s 153A. 42 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to compute proper interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 9.1 The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide application dated 12.12.2024: 1. For that the A.O. was not justified in passing a consolidated / common order for A.Y: 2011-2012 to 2019-2020 in violation of the mandate of sec. 153D of the Act, thereby, vitiating the entire proceedings and demand raised for the instant year. 2. (a) For that the assessment framed and / or demand raised for the instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority. (b) Without prejudice to the above, the assessment framed and/ or demand raised is vitiated in law and is nullity in as much as approval has been granted in a manner which is not in consonance with law. 9.2 At the outset, Ld. AR, submitted that the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 519/RPR/2024 for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 and this fact was duly acclaimed by the Ld. CIT-DR also, accordingly our observations hereinabove in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 in assessee’s own case shall apply mutatis mutandis to the respective grounds of ITA No. 519/RPR/2024, as under: 43 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Ground of appeal in ITA No. 519/RPR/2024 Covered by our decision for Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 Result Additional Ground dated 12.12.2024 Additional Ground dated 12.12.2024 Dismissed Ground No. 3(a) Ground No. 3(a) Partly allowed for statistical purposes Ground No. 3(b) Ground No. 3(b) Dismissed as not pressed Ground No. 4 Ground No. 4 Dismissed Ground No. 1,2, 5 & 6 Ground No. 1,2, 6 & 7 General, academic and consequential in nature, does not call for any separate adjudication 9.3 In view of aforesaid observations / decision, ITA No. 519/RPR/2024 for the AY 2012-13, is partly allowed. 10. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024 for 2013 - 2014 , are extracted as under: 1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in passing un ex-parte order. 2. For that, the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 153A is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. (a) For that, on the-facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CJT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,11,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of share capital / share premium received by the assessee company by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w. section 115BBE of the Act. 44 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (b) For that. the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no addition u/s 68 could be made in regard to the share capital / premium raised in the assessment framed u/s 153A inasmuch as no incriminating material was found in the course of search in connection therewith. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have applied a reasonable G.P rate as against the G.P rate of 8% applied by the A.O. on undisclosed sales, thereby, wrongly confirming the addition of Rs.3.06.75,207/- over and above declared G.P. of Rs.3,32,68,687/- in the return med u/s 153A. 5. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,94,878/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged commission @ 1% of the alleged undisclosed sale. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to compute proper interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per law. 7. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 10.1 The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide application dated 12.12.2024: 1. For that the A.O. was not justified in passing a consolidated / common order for A.Y: 2011-2012 to 2019-2020 in violation of the mandate of sec. 153D of the Act, thereby, vitiating the entire proceedings and demand raised for the instant year. 2. (a) For that the assessment framed and / or demand raised for the instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority. 45 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur (b) Without prejudice to the above, the assessment framed and/ or demand raised is vitiated in law and is nullity inasmuch as approval has been granted in a manner which is not in consonance with law. 10.2 At the outset, Ld. AR, submitted that the grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024 for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024, this fact was duly acclaimed by the Ld. CIT-DR also, accordingly our observations hereinabove in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 and vide our order dated 16.01.2025 in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024 in assessee’s own case, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the respective grounds of IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024, as under: Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024 Covered by our decision for Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2024 Result Additional Ground dated 12.12.2024 Additional Ground dated 12.12.2024 Dismissed Ground No. 3(a) Ground No. 3(a) Partly allowed for statistical purposes Ground No. 3(b) Ground No. 3(b) Dismissed as not pressed Ground No. 4 Ground No. 4 Dismissed Ground No. 1,2, 6 & 7 Ground No. 1,2, 6 & 7 General, academic and consequential in nature, does not call for any separate adjudication Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024 Covered by our decision for Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024 vide order dated 16.01.2025 Result Ground No. 5 Ground No. 4 (ITA No. 513/RPR/2024, for AY 2014-15) Dismissed – in terms of our observations / decision in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024, reproduced hereunder. 46 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 10.3 Our observations qua ground No. 4 for AY 2014-15, ITA No. 513/RPR/2024 decided by us vide our order dated 16.01.2025 in IT(SS)A No. 14 & Anors/RPR/2024, having identical issues except quantum of addition, which are squarely applicable on the issue in the present case, therefore, our observations therein are extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity and completeness: 17. Ground No. 4: Regarding disallowance of Rs. 63,430/- by Ld. AO on account of commission @ 1% on undisclosed sale, confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 17.1 On this issue, the facts are culled out from the order of Ld. CIT(A), which reads as under: 47 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 48 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 49 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 17.2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, assessee remained absent before the Ld. CIT(A) on various occasions, when the matter was fixed for hearing. Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) had deliberated on the issue in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee based on material available on records. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) after deliberating upon the merits on the issue are that “I find that Ld. AO is justified in assessing the total income of the appellant as 50 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur discussed above, when repeated opportunity in this regard was provided clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. In this circumstance, I have no option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the grounds of appeal of appellant.” 17.3 Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision with the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal, which is under consideration before us. 17.4 Ld. CIT-DR, on the issue of addition by the Ld. AO on account of commissioner @1% on bogus sales transacted by the assessee during the year under consideration, had submitted that the assessee remains non-responsive before the First Appellate Authority as also before the Tribunal, it seems that the assessee has no plausible explanation on the issue. Therefore, in absence of any response by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue after thoroughly deliberating upon the merits of the issue, in view of such facts and circumstances, the order Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be sustained. 17.5 We have considered the submissions of the revenue and material available on record. On perusal of the orders of revenue authorities, it is observed that the assessee had objected to the addition on account of commission @1% on the bogus sale of Rs.63,43,003/- , which works out at Rs.63,430/-. All such transactions are held to be bogus sale transactions on the basis of incriminating material impounded during the search & seizure action conducted on the premises of the assessee and a commission of 1% is added to the income of the assessee. Though the assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted before the Ld. AO that all the transactions of RTGS are part of regular books of accounts of the assessee accounted for a sale and as per audited books of accounts, the tax on such transactions are being offered, therefore, it would not be justifiable to assessee the same income again. On this issue, Ld. AO had made exhaustive exercise to find out cash payments by the assessee against the RTGS received from various parties, he consider the contentions of the assessee but are not found acceptable for the reason that the assessee is involved in providing of Bogus Sales bills in lieu of commission, therefore, in light of incriminating documents commission @ 1 % was added to the income of the assessee. The issue has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) however, there was no representation by 51 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur the assessee on 06 occasions, when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal based on facts on record available before him after deliberating thoroughly at length on the merits of the issue. As the assessee’s conduct before us is also observed to be evasive and of a non-compliant as the group matters of the assessee were fixed for hearing on various dates but the assessee remains non-responsive or has represented only for seeking of adjournments. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations are of the considered opinion that there was no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in absence of any plausible explanation by the assessee to dislodge the same. Further, we observe that the assessee’s involvement in providing of Bogus Sales bills in lieu of commission was never disputed by the assessee, therefore, receipt of commission by the assessee on such bogus transactions cannot be doubted, therefore, the finding of Ld. AO that the assessee has received a commission from such transactions found to be of material substance. We, thus, in terms of such observations do not find any perversity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), so we uphold the same. In result, Ground no. 4 of the assessee, therefore, stands dismissed. 10.4 In view of aforesaid observations / decision, IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024 for the AY 2013-14, which is squarely covered by our decisions in assessee’s own case as per details in the aforesaid tables, consequently, the appeal of assessee in IT(SS)A No. 13/RPR/2024, partly allowed. 11. In combined result, ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 are partly allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 52 ITA No: 519 & 452/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 12 & 13/RPR/2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2025. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 28/02/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // "