2023 (11) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Tribunal has upheld the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act which is sought to be agitated as substantial questions of law. The said questions read as under: "A. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified in concurring with the findings of CIT (A) and in confirming the impugned income of Rs.8,00,000/- under the provisions of 115BBC, section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being perverse and against the statutory provisions and as upheld in catena of judgments? B. Whether the orders of the authorities below are illegal, erroneous, without jurisdiction and thus perverse?" 3. The reasoning whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ledger copy of the accounts and the Income Tax Returns for the year 2014-15 and the bank statements had been sent in November, 2016. Vide separate communications dated 25.11.2016 and 28.11.2016, Burlington Mercantile (P) Ltd. and BKN Consultancy Services (P) Ltd., both situated in West- Bengal and dated 26.11.2016 by Pentium Capital Management (P) Ltd. based in Mumbai, the amounts received from the said three companies are Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs, respectively which fact had been acknowledged. 5. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the return had been filed by the appellant-assessee on 30.09.2014 by showing nil income. The case having been picked up for scrutiny under CASS, notice had been issued on 31.08....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies. Written submissions were again filed and an opportunity for producing the persons was also given on 23.12.2016. Apparently no such persons were produced which led to the Assessing Officer coming to the conclusion that the confirmation having been received from the addresses in Mumbai in two cases whereas the offices were situated related to Kolkata based companies, the genuineness was further clouded by noting as under: M/s Burligton Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. 51, Muktara m Babu Street, Kolkata- 700006, West Bengal 2,00,000/- Notices issued 06-10-2016, but received back with remarks not known or addressee moved and again notice issued on 09-11-2016 not received back. Reply has received on 15.12.2016 by post. But letter has sent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not confirmed. 7. It was in such circumstances, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that huge donations had been made to the assessee and the sources of income were not genuine and the companies were not working and the genuineness, identity, sources and creditworthiness of these companies had not been proved. Resultantly, the additions had been made. It is pertinent to notice that apart from the three companies there was additions of Rs.40 lakhs, Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs which had also been made by the Assessing Officer vide the impugned order and a total amount of Rs.53 lakhs had been added and accordingly proceedings had been initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inadequate proof of income. 8. In app....