TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 07.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent these cases and from the record, we observed that the case was posted for hearing first time on 29.03.2022 and from that date onwards, on 13 occasions, the cases were posted for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On 16.05.2024, the Bench directed ld. DR for the Revenue to serve the notice with direction. An Inspector was assigned with the duty to serve the notice. The Inspector's report dated 24.07.2024 is placed on record as per which the Inspector visited the address of the assessee and found that it is a big complex having so many flats situated in complex/towers. The Inspector was not allowed to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gating to Rs. 15,37,00,000/- from the group entities of Priya Gold Group. During post-search enquiries, it was found that assessee is a paper company/conduit company to facilitate and rotate the funds of the Priya Gold companies. Accordingly, the addition was made under section 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and before the ld. CIT (A), submitted as under :- "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both in facts and in law by making addition on account of share capital amounting Rs. 15,37,00,000 received by the appellant company u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant company has no assets, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is no ground of invoking any of the provisions of section 68 of the Act, as this would tantamount to double taxation of the same income and would not be legally justified. Further we reiterate that the said sum in fact represents an investment made by M/s Surya Food & Agro Lid' who had made an application under section 245 C (1) of the Act on December 14, 2016 before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission and M/s Surya Food & Agro Ltd had also mentioned the fact that it introduced its undisclosed income in form of share capital in two of its group companies i.e. M/s Surya Processed Foods Pvt Ltd and M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd through Kolkala based she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 15,37,00,000/- on account of share application money is justified and therefore the addition of Rs. 15,37,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act made by the AO is confirmed. This Ground No.1 of appeal is therefore dismissed." 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 9. Considered the submissions of Ld. DR and material placed on record, we observe that assessee has received share premium from various entities and failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and also genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. With....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. Based on the above observations, he made substantive addition of Rs. 15.38 crores in the hands of the beneficiary i.e. Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. and in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, he made protective addition in the hands of the assessee. 11. Further, the AO observed that the assessee being a paper company which was utilised for channelizing the unaccounted funds of Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd., he observed that normally 2 - 3% to the total value were charged as commission. Accordingly, he determined the commission @ 2.5% at Rs. 38,45,000/- as the income of the assessee. 12. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of t....