TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofit 1,88,500 2.1. Against the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). None appeared before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. 2.2. Against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised two Grounds. 3. Ground No.1 is related to disposal of appeal by the Ld.CIT(A), without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 3.1. During the appeal proceedings before us, Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he contended that the Ld.CIT(A) committed gross error violating the principles of natural justice and hence requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 3.2. Per contra, Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 3.3. We have gone through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and find that the Ld.CIT(A) posted the present case for hearing on two occasions. But, the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and there was no response from the assessee on both the occasions. On third occasion, the assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the same remained for the year ending 31-03-2013. Referring to Pg.56 of the Paper Book, the assessee has shown the changes of shareholdings of various shareholders and demonstrated that shares of the company were acquired by some new shareholders from the existing shareholders and argued that there was change in the pattern of shareholding and submitted that neither the company has issued fresh share capital nor introduced any cash credits during the year under consideration. Therefore, submitted that there is no case for making the addition u/s.68 of the Act and hence requested to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of assessee. 5.4. Per contra, the Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5.5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed on record. From the perusal of the Balance Sheet, we find that there is no change in the paid up share capital for the year ending 31-03-2012 or 31-03-2013. The paid up share capital remained at Rs. 97,45,000/-. Thus, there is no infusion of fresh share capital in the company. For a query from the Bench, the Ld.AR replied that the original share capital was issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd, which contains the complete and clear address of share applicant Ms. Ch.Pushpavathi. Therefore, argued that the assessee has discharged the burden and there is no case for making the addition u/s.68 of the Act. Hence, requested to delete the addition made by the AO and to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A). 6.3. The Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6.4. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed before us. It is true that during the year under consideration, the amount of Rs. 6,40,000/- was received as share application money in the account of assessee-company. The said share application money was received through cheque, which was established from the bank account copy. The same cheque was credited into bank account of assessee-company. In the confirmation letter though the assessee failed to furnish PAN details, complete address was given along with a copy of Aadhar card. In the Aadhar card also the complete address with door number etc., of the assessee was available. Therefore, the identity of the parties is established and the subscriber had confirmed the payment of share application money to the company. Hence, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond appeal before the Tribunal. 7.2. During the appeal proceedings before us, the Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee has made the payment of Rs. 1,73,82,082/-, the amount actually charged to P&L A/c was only Rs. 1,65,92,944/- but not the sum of Rs. 1,73,82,082/- as contended by the Ld.AO. Referring to Pg.60 of the Paper Book, the Ld.AR drawn our attention to the amounts debited to other civil and labour and site expenses and submitted that the amount debited was Rs. 3,14,12,205/- towards civil and labour expenses. Referring to Pg.70 of the Paper Book, the Ld.AR submitted that out of the amounts debited under the head 'Civil, Labour and site expenses' of Rs. 3,14,12,205/-, to civil contracts was Rs. 1,86,85,757/-, from which the AO made the disallowance. Referring to Pg.87 of the Paper Book, the assessee submitted that out of the sum of Rs. 1,86,85,757/- the assessee transferred to P&L A/c relating to the payments made to Ajay Mahajan, Batt Hydro Power & Constructions and Bhag Singh another to the extent of Rs. 1,65,92,944/- and debited to the P&L A/c, thus, the Ld.AR submitted that no excess expenditure was charged to P&L A/c, hence, there is no case for making the addition ....