2022 (5) TMI 157 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds decision to add Rs.62,75,000 under section 68 of I.T. Act for A.Y. 2009-10

M/s. Saran Flexible Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 22 (3), New Delhi

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to add Rs.62,75,000 under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2009-10. The appellant's non-appearance ... Addition u/s 68 and 69 - addition on account of sale of immovable property not disclosed to the Department and unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has passed a very reasonable order justifying both the additions made by the A.O. In absence of any other material brought before us to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A), we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding both the additions. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. Issues involved:1. Addition of Rs.62,75,000/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of Rs.62,75,000/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961- The appellant's appeal was against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of Rs.62,75,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2009-10.- The appellant did not appear during the hearing, and multiple letters sent to the appellant were returned, leading the Tribunal to decide the appeal based on available material and the arguments presented by the Ld. D.R.- The case involved the sale of a residential plot of land by the appellant company, which was not reported in the income tax return. The A.O. reopened the case based on AIR information and made additions under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, along with an additional amount on account of a bogus loan/liability.- The Ld. CIT(A) upheld both additions made by the A.O., emphasizing that the appellant had given authority to a representative to enter into agreements for property transfer. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the appellant's claim of fraudulent transfer was not substantiated and noted the lack of legal action taken by the appellant against the representative.- The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, upholding both additions. It found the Ld. CIT(A)'s order reasonable and justified based on the evidence and arguments presented. No new material was presented to warrant a different view, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities involved.