TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay and take it up for adjudication. 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. CIT, DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3.1. In the course of hearing, we notice that there is a submission dated 26.08.2019 addressed to the Bench filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Resolution Professional (RP) of the assessee. In this letter, it is stated that assessee has gone into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) admitted by Ld. National Company Law Tribunal (Kolkata Bench) (NCLT) vide order No. CP(IB) No. 1412/KB/2018 dated 07.03.2019 and the undersigned i.e. Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal has been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Through this letter, the IRP has submitted that no proceeding by any authority could have been continued or initiated when the moratorium comes into effect. In the case of assessee, as per the said letter, moratorium has come into e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....control over the assessee company on whom the findings of these appeals will apply. In case, CIRP failed and liquidation process was set in motion, findings will apply in consonance with provisions of section 178 of the Act. 4. The issues involved in the two appeals are unrelated and different. We first take up the appeal of the assessee where the grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: "1. That the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 19,10,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by adding back the entire share application/ allotment money under section 68 as undisclosed income of the appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant was unable to establish the genuineness of the subscribers to the share capital/share application money/ share premium and creditworthiness/sources of income of the investors could not be established satisfactorily. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the investor company is a group company." 6.1. Ld. AO also placed reliance on several judicial precedents for making this addition. Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue has called for remand report from the AO for the additional evidence placed before him and has also obtained a rejoinder from the assessee on the said remand report. After considering the written submissions, remand report, rejoinder and various case laws, Ld. CIT(A) arrived at a conclusion that assessee could not establish the genuineness of the transaction of raising of share capital along with share premium. According to the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has failed to satisfactorily discharge its onus in establishing the genuineness of the transaction since copies of bank statements were not produced during the assessment as well as first appellate proceeding despite specific requisition by the Ld. AO. From the perusal of detailed proceedings undertaken before the Ld. CIT(A), we are not inclined to interfere with the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. We now take ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documentary evidence in the shape of bills. (b) All the transactions are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee which have been audited. (c) All the payments were made against the said transactions through banking channels. 8.3. Ld. CIT(A) also placed his credence on the copies of ledger accounts of the parties furnished by the assessee while giving relief to the assessee. 8.4. From the perusal of the observation and finding arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A), we note that there is no enquiry which has been conducted or caused to be conducted by him who has co-terminus powers that of an AO to call for the relevant information and details from the concerned parties from whom assessee has made the purchases. It is also noted that the basis of giving relief is primarily on the bills and their delivery challans coupled with their entries in the books of account and claim that payments have been made through banking channels. 8.5. From the survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Act in the case of Shri Abhishek Sharma who is alleged to be a provider of bogus bills, it is observed that what is under dispute is the purchase from the parties from whom bills have been taken an....