Tribunal affirms CIT(A)'s decision on undisclosed investments in fraudulent billing case

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add disputed sums as undisclosed investments under section 69 of the Act for the appellant involved in fraudulent billing activities related to bogus shares transactions. The Tribunal found no evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the appeals by the assessees on 7.10.2015.

---

---

Issues:
Appeals against CIT(A) orders involving common issues.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by different assessees against the orders of CIT(A), Mumbai. Despite multiple hearing notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessees. The Departmental Representative also failed to provide necessary information, leading to adjournments. Eventually, the appeals were heard on 7.10.2015, where the Departmental Representative submitted written briefs.

In one case, the appellant faced a discrepancy in the name used in Form No. 36 and the bank challan. The Assessing Officer alleged involvement in fraudulent billing activities related to bogus shares transactions. The appellant denied these claims, providing bank account passbook and Demat account details as evidence. The Assessing Officer added the disputed sums as undisclosed investment under section 69 of the Act.

The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's actions, stating that the appellant and family members benefited from obtaining bogus bills, resulting in undisclosed investments in share purchases. Consequently, the Assessing Officer's notice under section 148 and the addition under section 69 were deemed justified. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Similar additions were made for other group members, confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted previous orders favoring the assessee regarding the validity of assessment reopening and the need for verification before making additions based on statements. However, the Departmental Representative argued that no material contradicted the CIT(A)'s findings. The cancellation of BSE and NSE registration of certain entities was cited as proof of bogus shares trading activities.

After considering submissions and records, the Tribunal found no material to counter the CIT(A)'s findings. Despite contentions about notice reasons and share purchases, the lack of evidence led to upholding the CIT(A)'s orders. Consequently, the appeals by the assessees were dismissed on 7.10.2015.

---