TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through RPAD on as many as 03 occasions were returned unserved by the Postal Authorities with the remarks "No such person". The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the change of address, if any. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 43,722/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that assessee has received share application money of Rs. 10 crores. He, therefore, asked the assessee to discharge the onus cast on it under the provisions of Section 68 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lying on various decisions added an amount of Rs. 10 crores to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. by observing as under : 5. I have examined the assessment order and the grounds of appeal. It appears that the order u/s. 143(3) was passed as the assessee did not comply by the notices u/s. 142(1)/143(2) adequately & required details were not submitted at all. During appellate proceedings, the table showing status of compliance is as under: Date of Hearings Status of compliance 20.06.2016 Notice issued for hearing on 08.07.2016 08.07.2016 Adjourned to 08.08.2016 on assessee's request 08.08.2016 Adjourned to 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trength in the grounds of appeal made. On merits I find that the additions are rightly made by the AO on the basis of available information on record. The AO has brought out very clearly that the assessee has adopted evasive techniques to avoid giving replies to the queries till the very end. The counsel of the assessee has been attending the assessment proceedings sporadically but could not offer any further explanations or to produce alleged share subscribers or the Directors of the Company. It is also Seen that on the share value of Rs. 10, the premium shown is Rs. 49,990/- which has clearly been done to hike up the value of the company. The whole circumstances as analysed by the AO, makes it very clear that the assessee has introduced i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parte without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee/appellant company. 2. That by passing the Order ex-parte the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-36 confirmed the order of AO 21(4) in entirety which is unfair. 3. That additions made by Ld. AO and later on confirmed by Ld CIT(A)-36 as referred above, on account of Share Application money/Share Premium received from parties amounting to Rs. 10,00,00,000/- is grossly unjust as the same is capital receipt and adding the same in the income of the assessee/appellate company is bad in law. 4. The appellant craves to add, delete or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal." 6. We have head the Ld. D.R. perused the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A)....