Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Neesa Agritech And Foods Ltd, Ahmedabad vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad on 31 May, 2022
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
'' A'' BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
And
SHRI SIDDHARATHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./IT(SS)A No. 136/AHD/2019
िनधारण वष/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006
Neesa Agritech And Foods Ltd, D.C.I.T.,
Plot No.278/279, Vs. Central Circle-2(2),
Panchratna Real Estate, Ahmedabad.
Opp. Aoma Cold Storage,
Changodar,
Ahmedabad.
PAN: AACCS7851G
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/05/2022
घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/202 2
आदेश/O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad, dated 27/12/2018 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2005-2006.
ITA no.136/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2005-06 2
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
A. AS REGARDS TO DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY (I) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the 'Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' where an appeal is filed before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in keeping the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- received on account of Share Application Money.
(II) The assessment order is contrary to the principals of natural justice and hence invalid;
"The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made in respect of Share application money be deleted."
The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter, vary, modify and delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before its hearing;
The Appellant also craves liberty to make request for grant of permission for submission of additional evidences, documents, details, explanation etc. as and when the same is necessary for due Justice to the assesses.
3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 10 lacs representing the Share Application Money under the provisions of section 68 of the Act.
4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of Agricultural products. The assessee is also an integral part of M/s Neesa Group which was subject to search under the provision of section 132 of the Act. There was a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of the assessee. The assessment was framed by the AO after making the addition of Rs. 10 lacs treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who also confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under:
5.6 The Sixth Ground of Appeal relates to addition of Rs. 10,00,000 being share application money received by Appellant from Mr. Sanjay Agrawal. During the course of Assessment Proceedings, various opportunities of being heard were provided to Appellant to provide the details as envisaged in Section 68 of the Act and Appellant has failed to provide such details hence addition under Section 68 of the Act was made relying upon various judicial pronouncements as discussed in the Assessment Order. The Appellant in Appellate Proceedings has stated that shares were allotted before 2005-06 and such shares were transferred to Sanjay Gupta in AY 2006-07 which is apparent ITA no.136/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2005-06 3 from RoC details. It was contended by Appellant that Mr. Sanjay Agrawal is a well-known builder and despite their efforts they failed to obtain confirmation hence requested undersigned to issue notice to said person for obtaining the details. This contention of Appellant cannot be accepted as primary onus of submitting the identity of share applicant, creditworthiness of such person and genuineness of the transaction is on Appellant. The Appellant has merely stated that above person is a well-known builder of Ahmedabad which is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction and undersigned cannot call for such details from third party, as primary onus is on Appellant. The Appellant has filed the submission as stated herein above even substantial opportunities were provided and such submission is filed to buy further time. As no details regarding confirmation, are forthcoming addition under Section 68 is confirmed. The Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel Vs ITO [201S] 95 taxmann.com 290 has held that "Where assessee failed to prove capacity of concerned persons who alleged to have given unsecured loan and/or gift, impugned addition made under sec. 68 was to be confirmed. " The Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs Bikram Singh [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104 has held that "where AO made addition to assessee's income under section 68 in respect of loan taken from various parties, since assessee failed to prove that any of those creditors had financial strength to lend such huge sums of money to assessee, that too without any collateral security, without interest and without a loan agreement, impugned addition deserved to be confirmed" The Hontile Bombay High court in the case of Arunkumar J. Muchhaia Vs CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 306 has held that, "where assessee failed to produce relevant documents and confirmation in respect of loan taken from various parties, mere fact that he did not maintain proper books of account could not be accepted as a valid plea and, thus, amount in question was to be added to assessee's taxable income under section 68" The Honl^le Kerala high court in the case of E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 123 has held that "Where assessee claimed that during year he had received a gift of Rs. 35 lakhs from his brother and Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 68 added gift amount to assessee's income, since assessee failed to establish creditworthiness of donor and genuineness of transaction, impugned addition was justified" and SLP filed by appellant against said decision is dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme court in 244 Taxman 193.
In view of various Court decisions as discussed in Assessment Order, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
6. The Ld. DR before us submitted that the assessee is not co-operative and further vehemently supported the order of the authorities below.
7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the matter has already been listed for hearing on several occasions but none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that the notices for hearing were issued to the given address of the assessee. It is the trite ITA no.136/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2005-06 4 law that the assessee should be vigilant enough to pursue the appeal after filing the same. The law assist those who are vigilant in their rights and not those who sleep on their own rights. In the absence of any contrary information available on record and after considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed reasoned order as discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 31/05/2022 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SIDDHARATHA NAUTIYAL) (WASEEM AHMED)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(True Copy)
Ahmedabad; Dated 31/05/2022
Manish