Pearl Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3747/DEL/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 374720114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AADCP2919D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3747/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Pearl Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 11-11-2019
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 23-06-2016
Judgment Text
PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3745/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ITA NO. 3746/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITA NO. 3747/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ITA NO. 3749/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) ITA NO. 3750/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) PEARL VISION PVT LTD FLAT NO. 909 KAILASH BUILDING KG MARG NEW DELHI PAN: AADCP2919D VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: MS SUSHMA SINGH CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 13/08/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/11/2019 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. THESE ARE THE BUNCH OF APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-25 NEW DELHI DATED 14.03.2016. THE FACTS RELATING TO ALL THESE YEARS A RE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE THOSE ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON OR DER. THESE ARE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE ORDERS H AVE BEEN PASSED BY THE LD AO WITH RESPECT TO A. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL TO TH E ALLEGEDLY BOGUS NON EXISTING COMPANIES PAGE | 2 B. PURCHASES OF SOFTWARE FROM THE COMPANIES WHO ARE ALLEGEDLY NOT FOUND TO BE CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING THE SOFTWARE TO THE ASSESSEE C. CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND EXPENSES FROM ALLEGEDLY N ON- EXISTING BOGUS COMPANIES AND NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER THESE ADDITIONS WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE AFTE R POST SEARCH INQUIRIES FURTHER INQUIRIES DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS ALSO. ELABORATE FACTS ARE RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATION OF TAX EVASION AND CONSEQUENT NON- COOPERATION BY ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 3745/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07:- 1. THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LEARNED A.O. WAS FILED BEFORE CIT [APPEALS] ON 26TH APRIL 2 013 BUT CIT [APPEALS] HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY CONFI RMING THE DEMAND OF LD. A.O. ON 14.03..2016 WITHOUT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE REASONS DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AN D COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. S OME OF THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:- [A] THAT MR. ANAND TIWARI ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM A CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4-5 YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE ILLNESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED/TREATED IN VARI OUS HOSPITALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS ABROAD ON INNUMERABLE OCCASIONS AND HAS BEEN BED-RIDDEN FOR MOST OF THE T IME DURING THESE YEARS. THE MEDICAL RECORD OF MR. ANAND TIWARI IS VOLUMINOUS AND THE SAME CAN BE FILED BEFO RE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IF SO DIRECTED. ON ACCOUNT O F HIS SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION MR. ANAND TIWARI HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED IN DEALING WITH THE AFFAIR S OF THE COMPANY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. IN ANY EVENT THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL AND TAXATION RELATED MATTERS OF THE COMPANY WERE BEING PAGE | 3 LOOKED AFTER BY MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FROM THE VERY INCEPTION. (B) THAT MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS HIMSELF SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS ILLNESS ES AND HAD ALSO BEEN INCARCERATED DURING THE RELEVANT TIME. DUE TO FINANCIAL CRISIS THE COMPANY HAD STAR TED MAKING DEFAULTS IN PAYING INSTALLMENTS TO VARIOUS BANKS AND ALSO IN FULFILLING OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGA TION. CONSEQUENTLY THE BANKS HAD FILED FALSE & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I.). THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING I NQUIRIES NOT ONLY FROM THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO FROM THE FAMILY/STAFF MEMBERS ETC. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD ALSO STARTED CALLING NOT ONLY THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO TH E STAFF MEMBERS TO THEIR OFFICE. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING VISITS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. MR. P.K . TIWARI WAS INCARCERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CBI CASES FROM JULY 2012 TO OCTOBER 2012 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS GOING THROUGH SEVERE FINANCIAL CRUNCH DURING ALL THESE YEARS DUE TO WHICH MOST OF THE COMPANY STAFF LEFT THE COMPANY AS THEIR SALARIES CO ULD NOT BE PAID. ON THE OTHER HAND MR. P.K. TIWARI COU LD NOT DEVOTE TIME TO PURSUE THE APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADVANCE AGE FREQUENT INCARCERATION AND THE EXTRA ORDINARY FINANCIAL CRISES AND OTHER ADVERSE CONDITIONS MR. P.K. TIWARI WAS UNDER ACUTE DEPRESSION AND COULD NOT THEREFORE FOCUS ON THE MATTER. (C) THAT THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY IN FIN ANCE DEPARTMENT LEFT THE COMPANY AFTER COMMITTING SERIOU S ACTS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSION. IT IS LEARNT THAT SUCH OFFICIALS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN VARIOUS IRREGULARITI ES DUE TO WHICH THE COMPANY AND ITS PRESENT DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFERED THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRAUM A. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GRAVE SITUATION THE MATTER BEFO RE THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE PURSUED IN A PROPER MANNER. (D) THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTIN G THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXTRACTED HUGE MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT PROPERLY PUT FORWARD THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. THEY SHOULD AT PAGE | 4 LEAST HAVE REPRESENTED THE DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE COMPANY AND OUGHT TO HAVE DEFENDED THE APPELLAN T TO THE BEST OF THEIR CAPACITY ON THE BASIS OF RECOR DS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE. B UT MOST UNFORTUNATELY THEY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTY RESULTING IN PASSING OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. (E) THAT THE RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E AFOREMENTIONED BONA FIDE REASONS AND EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED FURTHER TIME TO THE APPELLANT TO SATISFY THE RESPONDENT ON THE ASPE CT THAT THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS RESULTED IN EXTRE ME PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. (F) THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR HEARING INST EAD OF THE CASE BEING DECIDED UNHEARD. (G) THAT THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT IN PU RSUING ITS APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL AND T HE SAME WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. (H) THAT THE EXTRA-ORDINARY ADVERSE SITUATION SUFFE RED BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLES IT FOR A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BEING THROWN OUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON REPRESENTATION. (I) THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING WITHIN ITS POWER BY ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BUT THE SAID PROFESSIONALS FAILED TO PER FORM THEIR DUTY BY NOT ADVISING THE COMPANY IN THE MATTE R AND BY NOT REPRESENTING IT IN BONA-FIDE MANNER. (J) THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENT S AND TRIED TO PRESENT ITS CASE. (K) THAT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS AND NON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE COMPANY INSPITE OF TAKING MANY ADJOURNMENTS WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND IT S CASE BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). (L) THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO JUSTIFY THE GROU NDS FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. [M) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS PASSED BY THE CIT [APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING PAGE | 5 THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR THE DOCUMENT S OR EVIDENCES TO BE PROVIDED ON PART OF THE COMPANY AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE. (N) THAT THE COMPANY HAS VALID GROUNDS AND WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS IF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVID ED TO THE COMPANY. (O) THAT THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY IT BEFORE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF LEARNED A.O. ARE PROVIDED BELOW. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PAS SED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE NA TURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. A.O. TO THE ASSE SSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSE SSEE'S REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2013[FILED ON 18.03. 2013). 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY VIDE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2013(FRIDAY) WHICH HAD BEEN FI LED ON DAK COUNTER VIDE RECEIPT DATED 18.03.2013(MONDAY). 6. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO B E QUASHED BECAUSE THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. A.O. E.G. THE LD. A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ( A) AS TO WHY HE IS ACCEPTING THE SALES/TURNOVER APPEARING IN THE P/L ACCOUNT WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE ON PLANT & MACHINERY AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS; AND (B) AS TO WHY HE IS MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE NO PLANT & MACHINERY. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 92 06 750 /- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON T HE PLANT & MACHINERY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. PAGE | 6 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 15 29 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL THEREBY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 8 39 80 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURE LOAN THEREBY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3 67 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY BEARING PROPE RTY NO.202 2ND FLOOR LANDMARK BANDRA(WEST] MUMBAI THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 25 60 90 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY THE REBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 12. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 54 92 01 954/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 13. THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY CREATED AT RS. 18 48 61 378/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 14. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A. WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 15. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY FOR EVIDENCING AND ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WHICH IT COULD NOT DO BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. PAGE | 7 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROU ND[S] OF APPEAL TO ALTER/MODIFY THE GROUND(S] OF APPEAL AND /OR TO WITHDRAW THE GROUND[S) OF APPEAL EITHER PRIOR TO O R DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 3746/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08:- 1. THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LEARNED A.O. WAS FILED BEFORE CIT [APPEALS] ON 26TH APRIL 2 013 BUT CIT [APPEALS] HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY CONFI RMING THE DEMAND OF LD. A.O. ON 14.03..2016 WITHOUT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE REASONS DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AN D COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. S OME OF THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:- [A] THAT MR. ANAND TIWARI ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM A CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4-5 YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE ILLNESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED/TREATED IN VARI OUS HOSPITALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS ABROAD ON INNUMERABLE OCCASIONS AND HAS BEEN BED-RIDDEN FOR MOST OF THE T IME DURING THESE YEARS. THE MEDICAL RECORD OF MR. ANAND TIWARI IS VOLUMINOUS AND THE SAME CAN BE FILED BEFO RE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IF SO DIRECTED. ON ACCOUNT O F HIS SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION MR. ANAND TIWARI HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED IN DEALING WITH THE AFFAIR S OF THE COMPANY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. IN ANY EVENT THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL AND TAXATION RELATED MATTERS OF THE COMPANY WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FROM THE VERY INCEPTION. (B) THAT MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS HIMSELF SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS ILLNESS ES AND HAD ALSO BEEN INCARCERATED DURING THE RELEVANT TIME. DUE TO FINANCIAL CRISIS THE COMPANY HAD STAR TED MAKING DEFAULTS IN PAYING INSTALLMENTS TO VARIOUS BANKS AND ALSO IN FULFILLING OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGA TION. CONSEQUENTLY THE BANKS HAD FILED FALSE & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I.). THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING I NQUIRIES NOT ONLY FROM THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO FROM THE FAMILY/STAFF MEMBERS ETC. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD ALSO PAGE | 8 STARTED CALLING NOT ONLY THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO TH E STAFF MEMBERS TO THEIR OFFICE. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING VISITS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. MR. P.K . TIWARI WAS INCARCERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CBI CASES FROM JULY 2012 TO OCTOBER 2012 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS GOING THROUGH SEVERE FINANCIAL CRUNCH DURING ALL THESE YEARS DUE TO WHICH MOST OF THE COMPANY STAFF LEFT THE COMPANY AS THEIR SALARIES CO ULD NOT BE PAID. ON THE OTHER HAND MR. P.K. TIWARI COU LD NOT DEVOTE TIME TO PURSUE THE APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADVANCE AGE FREQUENT INCARCERATION AND THE EXTRA ORDINARY FINANCIAL CRISES AND OTHER ADVERSE CONDITIONS MR. P.K. TIWARI WAS UNDER ACUTE DEPRESSION AND COULD NOT THEREFORE FOCUS ON THE MATTER. (C) THAT THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY IN FIN ANCE DEPARTMENT LEFT THE COMPANY AFTER COMMITTING SERIOU S ACTS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSION. IT IS LEARNT THAT SUCH OFFICIALS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN VARIOUS IRREGULARITI ES DUE TO WHICH THE COMPANY AND ITS PRESENT DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFERED THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRAUM A. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GRAVE SITUATION THE MATTER BEFO RE THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE PURSUED IN A PROPER MANNER. (D) THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTIN G THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXTRACTED HUGE MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT PROPERLY PUT FORWARD THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE REPRESENTED THE DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE COMPANY AND OUGHT TO HAVE DEFENDED THE APPELLAN T TO THE BEST OF THEIR CAPACITY ON THE BASIS OF RECOR DS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE. B UT MOST UNFORTUNATELY THEY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTY RESULTING IN PASSING OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. (E) THAT THE RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E AFOREMENTIONED BONA FIDE REASONS AND EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED FURTHER TIME TO THE APPELLANT TO SATISFY THE RESPONDENT ON THE ASPE CT THAT THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE PAGE | 9 RESPONDENT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS RESULTED IN EXTRE ME PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. (F) THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR HEARING INST EAD OF THE CASE BEING DECIDED UNHEARD. (G) THAT THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT IN PU RSUING ITS APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL AND T HE SAME WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. (H) THAT THE EXTRA-ORDINARY ADVERSE SITUATION SUFFE RED BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLES IT FOR A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BEING THROWN OUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON REPRESENTATION. (I) THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING WITHIN ITS POWER BY ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BUT THE SAID PROFESSIONALS FAILED TO PER FORM THEIR DUTY BY NOT ADVISING THE COMPANY IN THE MATTE R AND BY NOT REPRESENTING IT IN BONA-FIDE MANNER. (J) THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENT S AND TRIED TO PRESENT ITS CASE. (K) THAT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS AND NON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE COMPANY INSPITE OF TAKING MANY ADJOURNMENTS WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND IT S CASE BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). (L) THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO JUSTIFY THE GROU NDS FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. [M) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS PASSED BY THE CIT [APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR THE DOCUMENT S OR EVIDENCES TO BE PROVIDED ON PART OF THE COMPANY AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE. (N) THAT THE COMPANY HAS VALID GROUNDS AND WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS IF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVID ED TO THE COMPANY. (O) THAT THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY IT BEFORE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF LEARNED A.O. ARE PROVIDED BELOW. PAGE | 10 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PAS SED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE NA TURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. A.O. TO THE ASSE SSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSE SSEE'S REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2013[FILED ON 18.03. 2013). 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY VIDE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2013(FRIDAY) WHICH HAD BEEN FI LED ON DAK COUNTER VIDE RECEIPT DATED 18.03.2013(MONDAY). 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 13 35 7 6 475/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED. 7. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO B E QUASHED BECAUSE THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. A.O. E.G. THE LD. A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ( A) AS TO WHY HE IS ACCEPTING THE SALES/TURNOVER APPEARING IN THE P/L ACCOUNT WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE ON PLANT & MACHINERY AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS; AND (B) AS TO WHY HE IS MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE NO PLANT & MACHINERY. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16 79 84 96 8/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON T HE PLANT & MACHINERY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 46 70 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL/ APPLICATION MONEY THEREB Y TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT/ SHARE CAPITAL AND S HARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 6 90 00 000/- ON PAGE | 11 ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY BEARING PLOT NO. 13 SECTOR 16A FILM CITY NOIDA THEREBY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAI D PROPERTY WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR/ RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AND WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1 28 65 19 625/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY THE REBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAI D PROPERTY WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR/ RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AND WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 12. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 1 99 05 0 4 593/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 13. THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY CREATED AT RS. 66 78 00 361/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 14. THAT THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CRE DIT OF PREPAID TAXES. 15. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY FOR EVIDENCING AND ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WHICH IT COULD NOT DO BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROU ND[S] OF APPEAL TO ALTER/MODIFY THE GROUND(S] OF APPEAL AND /OR TO WITHDRAW THE GROUND[S) OF APPEAL EITHER PRIOR TO O R DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 3747/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09:- 1. THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LEARNED A.O. WAS FILED BEFORE CIT [APPEALS] ON 26TH APRIL 2 013 BUT CIT [APPEALS] HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY CONFI RMING THE DEMAND OF LD. A.O. ON 14.03..2016 WITHOUT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE REASONS DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AN D COULD PAGE | 12 NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. S OME OF THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:- [A] THAT MR. ANAND TIWARI ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM A CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4-5 YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE ILLNESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED/TREATED IN VARI OUS HOSPITALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS ABROAD ON INNUMERABLE OCCASIONS AND HAS BEEN BED-RIDDEN FOR MOST OF THE T IME DURING THESE YEARS. THE MEDICAL RECORD OF MR. ANAND TIWARI IS VOLUMINOUS AND THE SAME CAN BE FILED BEFO RE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IF SO DIRECTED. ON ACCOUNT O F HIS SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION MR. ANAND TIWARI HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED IN DEALING WITH THE AFFAIR S OF THE COMPANY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. IN ANY EVENT THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL AND TAXATION RELATED MATTERS OF THE COMPANY WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FROM THE VERY INCEPTION. (B) THAT MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS HIMSELF SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS ILLNESS ES AND HAD ALSO BEEN INCARCERATED DURING THE RELEVANT TIME. DUE TO FINANCIAL CRISIS THE COMPANY HAD STAR TED MAKING DEFAULTS IN PAYING INSTALLMENTS TO VARIOUS BANKS AND ALSO IN FULFILLING OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGA TION. CONSEQUENTLY THE BANKS HAD FILED FALSE & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I.). THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING I NQUIRIES NOT ONLY FROM THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO FROM THE FAMILY/STAFF MEMBERS ETC. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD ALSO STARTED CALLING NOT ONLY THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO TH E STAFF MEMBERS TO THEIR OFFICE. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING VISITS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. MR. P.K . TIWARI WAS INCARCERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CBI CASES FROM JULY 2012 TO OCTOBER 2012 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS GOING THROUGH SEVERE FINANCIAL CRUNCH DURING ALL THESE YEARS DUE TO WHICH MOST OF THE COMPANY STAFF LEFT THE COMPANY AS THEIR SALARIES CO ULD NOT BE PAID. ON THE OTHER HAND MR. P.K. TIWARI COU LD NOT DEVOTE TIME TO PURSUE THE APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADVANCE AGE FREQUENT INCARCERATION AND THE EXTRA ORDINARY FINANCIAL CRISES AND OTHER ADVERSE CONDITIONS MR. P.K. PAGE | 13 TIWARI WAS UNDER ACUTE DEPRESSION AND COULD NOT THEREFORE FOCUS ON THE MATTER. (C) THAT THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY IN FIN ANCE DEPARTMENT LEFT THE COMPANY AFTER COMMITTING SERIOU S ACTS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSION. IT IS LEARNT THAT SUCH OFFICIALS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN VARIOUS IRREGULARITI ES DUE TO WHICH THE COMPANY AND ITS PRESENT DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFERED THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRAUM A. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GRAVE SITUATION THE MATTER BEFO RE THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE PURSUED IN A PROPER MANNER. (D) THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTIN G THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXTRACTED HUGE MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT PROPERLY PUT FORWARD THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE REPRESENTED THE DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE COMPANY AND OUGHT TO HAVE DEFENDED THE APPELLAN T TO THE BEST OF THEIR CAPACITY ON THE BASIS OF RECOR DS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE. B UT MOST UNFORTUNATELY THEY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTY RESULTING IN PASSING OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. (E) THAT THE RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E AFOREMENTIONED BONA FIDE REASONS AND EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED FURTHER TIME TO THE APPELLANT TO SATISFY THE RESPONDENT ON THE ASPE CT THAT THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS RESULTED IN EXTRE ME PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. (F) THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR HEARING INST EAD OF THE CASE BEING DECIDED UNHEARD. (G) THAT THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT IN PU RSUING ITS APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL AND T HE SAME WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. (H) THAT THE EXTRA-ORDINARY ADVERSE SITUATION SUFFE RED BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLES IT FOR A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BEING THROWN OUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON REPRESENTATION. PAGE | 14 (I) THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING WITHIN ITS POWER BY ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BUT THE SAID PROFESSIONALS FAILED TO PER FORM THEIR DUTY BY NOT ADVISING THE COMPANY IN THE MATTE R AND BY NOT REPRESENTING IT IN BONA-FIDE MANNER. (J) THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENT S AND TRIED TO PRESENT ITS CASE. (K) THAT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS AND NON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE COMPANY INSPITE OF TAKING MANY ADJOURNMENTS WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND IT S CASE BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). (L) THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO JUSTIFY THE GROU NDS FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. [M) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS PASSED BY THE CIT [APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR THE DOCUMENT S OR EVIDENCES TO BE PROVIDED ON PART OF THE COMPANY AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE. (N) THAT THE COMPANY HAS VALID GROUNDS AND WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS IF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVID ED TO THE COMPANY. (O) THAT THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY IT BEFORE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF LEARNED A.O. ARE PROVIDED BELOW. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PAS SED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE NA TURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. A.O. TO THE ASSE SSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSE SSEE'S REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2013[FILED ON 18.03. 2013). 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY VIDE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2013(FRIDAY) WHICH HAD BEEN FI LED ON DAK COUNTER VIDE RECEIPT DATED 18.03.2013(MONDAY). PAGE | 15 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 3 96 86 668/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE IT'S RETURN OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED. 7. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. A.O. E.G. THE LD. A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ( A) AS TO WHY HE IS ACCEPTING THE SALES/TURNOVER APPEARING IN TH E P/L ACCOUNT WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE ON PLANT & MACHINERY AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS; AND (B) AS TO WHY HE IS MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE NO PLANT & MACHINERY. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22 26 71 14 4/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON T HE PLANT & MACHINERY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3 12 83 971 /- (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT RS 25 39 55 115/- AND THE DEPRECIATION SEPARATELY DISA LLOWED AT RS.22 26 71 144/-) ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CL AIMED FOR WANT OF DETAILS. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 7 39 31 654/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY BEARING PROPE RTY NO.41 6TH FLOOR JAYANTH TECH PARK MOUNT POONAMALLEE HIG H ROAD CHENNAI THEREBY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAI D PROPERTY WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR/RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 5 91 47 066/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT & MACHINERY THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. PAGE | 16 THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAI D PROPERTY WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR/RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 12. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 38 70 33 835/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 13. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS. 14. THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY CREATED AT RS. 1 3 15 52 801/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 15. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES. 16. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A. WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 17. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY FOR EVIDENCING AND ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WHICH IT COULD NOT DO BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROU ND(S) OF APPEAL TO ALTER/MODIFY THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND /OR TO WITHDRAW THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER PRIOR TO O R DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 3747/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09:- 1. THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LEARNED A.O. WAS FILED BEFORE CIT [APPEALS] ON 26TH APRIL 2 013 BUT CIT [APPEALS] HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY CONFI RMING THE DEMAND OF LD. A.O. ON 14.03..2016 WITHOUT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE REASONS DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AN D COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. S OME OF THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:- [A] THAT MR. ANAND TIWARI ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM A CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4-5 YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE ILLNESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED/TREATED IN VARI OUS PAGE | 17 HOSPITALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS ABROAD ON INNUMERABLE OCCASIONS AND HAS BEEN BED-RIDDEN FOR MOST OF THE T IME DURING THESE YEARS. THE MEDICAL RECORD OF MR. ANAND TIWARI IS VOLUMINOUS AND THE SAME CAN BE FILED BEFO RE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IF SO DIRECTED. ON ACCOUNT O F HIS SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION MR. ANAND TIWARI HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED IN DEALING WITH THE AFFAIR S OF THE COMPANY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. IN ANY EVENT THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL AND TAXATION RELATED MATTERS OF THE COMPANY WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FROM THE VERY INCEPTION. (B) THAT MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS HIMSELF SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS ILLNESS ES AND HAD ALSO BEEN INCARCERATED DURING THE RELEVANT TIME. DUE TO FINANCIAL CRISIS THE COMPANY HAD STAR TED MAKING DEFAULTS IN PAYING INSTALLMENTS TO VARIOUS BANKS AND ALSO IN FULFILLING OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGA TION. CONSEQUENTLY THE BANKS HAD FILED FALSE & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I.). THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING I NQUIRIES NOT ONLY FROM THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO FROM THE FAMILY/STAFF MEMBERS ETC. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD ALSO STARTED CALLING NOT ONLY THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO TH E STAFF MEMBERS TO THEIR OFFICE. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING VISITS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. MR. P.K . TIWARI WAS INCARCERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CBI CASES FROM JULY 2012 TO OCTOBER 2012 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS GOING THROUGH SEVERE FINANCIAL CRUNCH DURING ALL THESE YEARS DUE TO WHICH MOST OF THE COMPANY STAFF LEFT THE COMPANY AS THEIR SALARIES CO ULD NOT BE PAID. ON THE OTHER HAND MR. P.K. TIWARI COU LD NOT DEVOTE TIME TO PURSUE THE APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADVANCE AGE FREQUENT INCARCERATION AND THE EXTRA ORDINARY FINANCIAL CRISES AND OTHER ADVERSE CONDITIONS MR. P.K. TIWARI WAS UNDER ACUTE DEPRESSION AND COULD NOT THEREFORE FOCUS ON THE MATTER. (C) THAT THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY IN FIN ANCE DEPARTMENT LEFT THE COMPANY AFTER COMMITTING SERIOU S ACTS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSION. IT IS LEARNT THAT SUCH OFFICIALS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN VARIOUS IRREGULARITI ES DUE PAGE | 18 TO WHICH THE COMPANY AND ITS PRESENT DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFERED THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRAUM A. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GRAVE SITUATION THE MATTER BEFO RE THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE PURSUED IN A PROPER MANNER. (D) THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTIN G THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXTRACTED HUGE MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT PROPERLY PUT FORWARD THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE REPRESENTED THE DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE COMPANY AND OUGHT TO HAVE DEFENDED THE APPELLAN T TO THE BEST OF THEIR CAPACITY ON THE BASIS OF RECOR DS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE. B UT MOST UNFORTUNATELY THEY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTY RESULTING IN PASSING OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. (E) THAT THE RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E AFOREMENTIONED BONA FIDE REASONS AND EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED FURTHER TIME TO THE APPELLANT TO SATISFY THE RESPONDENT ON THE ASPE CT THAT THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS RESULTED IN EXTRE ME PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. (F) THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR HEARING INST EAD OF THE CASE BEING DECIDED UNHEARD. (G) THAT THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT IN PU RSUING ITS APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL AND T HE SAME WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. (H) THAT THE EXTRA-ORDINARY ADVERSE SITUATION SUFFE RED BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLES IT FOR A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BEING THROWN OUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON REPRESENTATION. (I) THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING WITHIN ITS POWER BY ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BUT THE SAID PROFESSIONALS FAILED TO PER FORM THEIR DUTY BY NOT ADVISING THE COMPANY IN THE MATTE R AND BY NOT REPRESENTING IT IN BONA-FIDE MANNER. (J) THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENT S AND TRIED TO PRESENT ITS CASE. PAGE | 19 (K) THAT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS AND NON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE COMPANY INSPITE OF TAKING MANY ADJOURNMENTS WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND IT S CASE BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). (L) THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO JUSTIFY THE GROU NDS FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. [M) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS PASSED BY THE CIT [APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR THE DOCUMENT S OR EVIDENCES TO BE PROVIDED ON PART OF THE COMPANY AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE. (N) THAT THE COMPANY HAS VALID GROUNDS AND WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS IF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVID ED TO THE COMPANY. (O) THAT THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY IT BEFORE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF LEARNED A.O. ARE PROVIDED BELOW. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PAS SED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE NA TURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. A.O. TO THE ASSE SSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSE SSEE'S REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2013[FILED ON 18.03. 2013). 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY VIDE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2013(FRIDAY) WHICH HAD BEEN FI LED ON DAK COUNTER VIDE RECEIPT DATED 18.03.2013(MONDAY). 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 3 96 86 668/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE IT'S RETURN OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED. 7. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. A.O. E.G. THE LD. A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ( A) AS TO WHY PAGE | 20 HE IS ACCEPTING THE SALES/TURNOVER APPEARING IN THE P/L ACCOUNT WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE ON PLANT & MACHINERY AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS; AND [B) AS TO WHY HE IS MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE NO PLANT & MACHINERY. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50 19 37 88 7/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON T HE PLANT & MACHINERY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7 37 98 394 /- (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT RS 57 75 36 281/- AND THE DEPRECIATION SEPARATELY DISA LLOWED AT RS.50 19 37 887/-) ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CL AIMED FOR WANT OF DETAILS. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 55 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM M/S LAXMI EXIM PVT. LTD. THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT/SHA RE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1 31 47 81 412/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT & MACHINERY THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAI D PROPERTY WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR/RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 12. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 1 89 60 17 693/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 13. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS. PAGE | 21 14. THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY CREATED AT RS. 5 7 58 68 383/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 15. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES. 16. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A. WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 17. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY FOR EVIDENCING AND ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WHICH IT COULD NOT DO BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROU ND(S) OF APPEAL TO ALTER/MODIFY THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND /OR TO WITHDRAW THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER PRIOR TO O R DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 3747/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09:- 1. THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LEARNED A.O. WAS FILED BEFORE CIT [APPEALS] ON 26TH APRIL 2 013 BUT CIT [APPEALS] HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY CONFI RMING THE DEMAND OF LD. A.O. ON 14.03..2016 WITHOUT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE REASONS DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AN D COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS]. S OME OF THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:- [A] THAT MR. ANAND TIWARI ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM A CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4-5 YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SEVERE ILLNESS HE HAS BEEN ADMITTED/TREATED IN VARI OUS HOSPITALS IN INDIA AS WELL AS ABROAD ON INNUMERABLE OCCASIONS AND HAS BEEN BED-RIDDEN FOR MOST OF THE T IME DURING THESE YEARS. THE MEDICAL RECORD OF MR. ANAND TIWARI IS VOLUMINOUS AND THE SAME CAN BE FILED BEFO RE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IF SO DIRECTED. ON ACCOUNT O F HIS SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION MR. ANAND TIWARI HAS BEEN COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED IN DEALING WITH THE AFFAIR S OF THE COMPANY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. IN ANY EVENT THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL AND PAGE | 22 TAXATION RELATED MATTERS OF THE COMPANY WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FROM THE VERY INCEPTION. (B) THAT MR. P.K. TIWARI THE OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS HIMSELF SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS ILLNESS ES AND HAD ALSO BEEN INCARCERATED DURING THE RELEVANT TIME. DUE TO FINANCIAL CRISIS THE COMPANY HAD STAR TED MAKING DEFAULTS IN PAYING INSTALLMENTS TO VARIOUS BANKS AND ALSO IN FULFILLING OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGA TION. CONSEQUENTLY THE BANKS HAD FILED FALSE & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I.). THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING I NQUIRIES NOT ONLY FROM THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO FROM THE FAMILY/STAFF MEMBERS ETC. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD ALSO STARTED CALLING NOT ONLY THE DIRECTORS BUT ALSO TH E STAFF MEMBERS TO THEIR OFFICE. THE C.B.I. OFFICIALS HAD STARTED MAKING VISITS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. MR. P.K . TIWARI WAS INCARCERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CBI CASES FROM JULY 2012 TO OCTOBER 2012 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS GOING THROUGH SEVERE FINANCIAL CRUNCH DURING ALL THESE YEARS DUE TO WHICH MOST OF THE COMPANY STAFF LEFT THE COMPANY AS THEIR SALARIES CO ULD NOT BE PAID. ON THE OTHER HAND MR. P.K. TIWARI COU LD NOT DEVOTE TIME TO PURSUE THE APPEALS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADVANCE AGE FREQUENT INCARCERATION AND THE EXTRA ORDINARY FINANCIAL CRISES AND OTHER ADVERSE CONDITIONS MR. P.K. TIWARI WAS UNDER ACUTE DEPRESSION AND COULD NOT THEREFORE FOCUS ON THE MATTER. (C) THAT THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY IN FIN ANCE DEPARTMENT LEFT THE COMPANY AFTER COMMITTING SERIOU S ACTS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSION. IT IS LEARNT THAT SUCH OFFICIALS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN VARIOUS IRREGULARITI ES DUE TO WHICH THE COMPANY AND ITS PRESENT DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFERED THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRAUM A. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GRAVE SITUATION THE MATTER BEFO RE THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE PURSUED IN A PROPER MANNER. (D) THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTIN G THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXTRACTED HUGE MONEY FROM THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT PROPERLY PUT PAGE | 23 FORWARD THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE REPRESENTED THE DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THE COMPANY AND OUGHT TO HAVE DEFENDED THE APPELLAN T TO THE BEST OF THEIR CAPACITY ON THE BASIS OF RECOR DS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE. B UT MOST UNFORTUNATELY THEY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTY RESULTING IN PASSING OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. (E) THAT THE RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E AFOREMENTIONED BONA FIDE REASONS AND EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED FURTHER TIME TO THE APPELLANT TO SATISFY THE RESPONDENT ON THE ASPE CT THAT THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED. THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS RESULTED IN EXTRE ME PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. (F) THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR HEARING INST EAD OF THE CASE BEING DECIDED UNHEARD. (G) THAT THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT IN PU RSUING ITS APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL AND T HE SAME WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. (H) THAT THE EXTRA-ORDINARY ADVERSE SITUATION SUFFE RED BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLES IT FOR A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BEING THROWN OUT ON ACCOUNT OF NON REPRESENTATION. (I) THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING WITHIN ITS POWER BY ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BUT THE SAID PROFESSIONALS FAILED TO PER FORM THEIR DUTY BY NOT ADVISING THE COMPANY IN THE MATTE R AND BY NOT REPRESENTING IT IN BONA-FIDE MANNER. (J) THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENT S AND TRIED TO PRESENT ITS CASE. (K) THAT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS AND NON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE COMPANY INSPITE OF TAKING MANY ADJOURNMENTS WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND IT S CASE BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). (L) THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO JUSTIFY THE GROU NDS FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. PAGE | 24 [M) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS PASSED BY THE CIT [APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR THE DOCUMENT S OR EVIDENCES TO BE PROVIDED ON PART OF THE COMPANY AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE. (N) THAT THE COMPANY HAS VALID GROUNDS AND WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW AND WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS IF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVID ED TO THE COMPANY. (O) THAT THE GROUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY IT BEFORE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF LEARNED A.O. ARE PROVIDED BELOW. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PAS SED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE NA TURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. A.O. TO THE ASSE SSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSE SSEE'S REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2013[FILED ON 18.03. 2013). 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S REP LY VIDE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2013(FRIDAY) WHICH HAD BEEN FI LED ON DAK COUNTER VIDE RECEIPT DATED 18.03.2013(MONDAY). 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 3 96 86 668/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE IT'S RETURN OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED. 7. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO B E QUASHED BECAUSE THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. A.O. E.G. THE LD. A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN A S TO WHY HE IS ACCEPTING THE SALES/TURNOVER APPEARING IN THE P/ L ACCOUNT WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WERE ON PLANT & MACHINE RY AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS WHEN ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WER E NO PLANT & MACHINERY AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 43 01 62 90 4/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON T HE PLANT & MACHINERY. PAGE | 25 THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7 35 83 016 /- (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT RS 50 37 45 920/- AND THE DEPRECIATION SEPARATELY DISA LLOWED AT RS.43 01 62 904/-) ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CL AIMED FOR WANT OF DETAILS. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22 93 450/- U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D.. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUALL Y INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 38 51 13 587(INCLUDING OPENING STOCK OF RS. 29 63 97 855/-} BEING THE EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L A/C THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. A.O. ARE EITHER FACTUAL LY INCORRECT OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 12. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 2 89 11 52 957/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 13. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS. 14. THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY CREATED AT RS.96 03 68 734/- IS ARBITRARY UNJUST ILLEGAL & HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 15. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES. 16. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LA W THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A. WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 17. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B WITHOUT PR EJUDICE THE INTEREST CHARGED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. PAGE | 26 THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY FOR EVIDENCING AND ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WHICH IT COULD NOT DO BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROU ND(S) OF APPEAL TO ALTER/MODIFY THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND /OR TO WITHDRAW THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER PRIOR TO O R DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 7. WE FIRST STATE THE FACTS FOR AY 2006-07. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT SEARCH U/S 1 32 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED OF M/S. CENTURY COMMUNICATION GROUP ( M/S. MAHUAA MEDIA GROUP) OF CASES ON 11.03.2011 WHERE T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WA S PROMOTED BY SHRI P.K. TEWARI AND FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEREFOR E NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON 09.10.2012 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE OBJ ECTED 153A PROCEEDING WHICH WAS REJECTED. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 28. 02.2013 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 275204/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISION AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 10576424/-. SUBSEQUENTLY QUESTIONNAIRES WERE ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NO REPLY WAS FORTHCOMING. THE LD AO NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT FOR THIS YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SEVERAL INCR IMINATING MATERIAL WERE SEIZED IN THE FORM OF INVOICES AND BI LLS ETC. THE SAME WERE CONFRONTED TO SHRI P. K. TEWARI BUT IN TH E COURSE OF STATEMENT HE FAILED TO GIVE DETAILS OF ASSETS PURCH ASED. AFTER THAT MR. P. K. TEWARI WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HOWEVER AT MOST OF THE TIMES HE DID NO T APPEAR. THUS HE DID NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF THE FIXED ASSETS. AT THE FAG END HE SUBMITTED THAT MAJORITY OF THE ASSETS ARE SOFTWARE INSTALLED AT VARIOUS PLACES AND THEY A RE NOT AVAILABLE PAGE | 27 IN PHYSICAL FORM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SEVERAL EQUIPMENT FIXED ASSETS ARE GIVEN TO FIELD STAFF FOR USAGE AN D THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE PREMISES SEARCHED. THE AO NOTED THAT THE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED ALONG WITH IT GROUP COMPANIES ASSETS AND EQUIPMENT OF MORE THAN RS. 1400 CRORES AND MAJO RITY OF THEM IS SOFTWARE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BILLS AND INVOICES OF RS. 640.00 CRORES WERE FOUND WHERE PURCHASE HAVE BEEN MADE BY VARIOUS COMPANIES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SOF TWARE OF RS. 38.31 CRORES WAS PURCHASES. THE LD AO INVESTIGATED THE SUPPLIERS AND FOUND THAT MOST OF THE COMPANIES DID NOT HAVE T HEIR OWN PREMISES AND NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OU T. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT ALL THE SUPPLIERS OF THE SOFTWARE ARE BO GUS PARTIES AND THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY CAPABILITY OF PRODUCING THE S OFTWARE PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AO FURTHER CARRIED OUT ENQUIRIES FROM SINGAPORE COMPANIES WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COMPANIES NEVER SOLD ANY SOFTWARE TO THE SUPPLI ERS OF THE SOFTWARE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHER MR. ANAND TEWARI WAS ALSO CONFRONTED AND EXAMINED BY THE LD ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE ISSUE OF IN HOUSE DE VELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE BY THE SUPPLIERS COMPANIES. AFTER THE DETA ILED ENQUIRY THE LD AO FOUND THAT ALL THE SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED SOFTWARE ARE BOGUS AND THEREFORE BOGUS D EPRECIATION CLAIMED OF RS. 19206750/- WAS DISALLOWED. 9. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SHARE CAP ITAL OF RS. 15.29 CRORES FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROOF THE IDENTITY CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ALONG WITH THE NECES SARY INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED THOSE PERS ONS. THE LD AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) BUT ALL THE INVESTORS A ND IN MOST OF PAGE | 28 THE CASES EITHER REPLY WAS NOT RECEIVED OR IT HAS C OME BACK AS UNSERVED. WHEREVER THE REPLY WAS RECEIVED THEY WER E WITHOUT ADEQUATE PROOF. AS MOST OF THE INVESTORS ARE BASED IN KOLKATA THE INSPECTORS WERE DEPUTED TO FIND OUT THE COMPANIES. THE INSPECTORS REPORT STATES THAT NO SUCH COMPANIES WE RE FOUND AT THE ADDRESSES. SUCH INSPECTORS REPORT WERE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE THE LD AO MADE AN ADDI TION OF RS. 15.29 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITA L. 10. ASSESSEE RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS. 8 39 80 000/- AND A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITWORTHINESS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE DID NO T FURNISH ANY INFORMATION THE ADDITION OF RS. 83980 000/- WAS MAD E. 11. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE ACQUIRED A PREMISES IN BANDRA(WEST) MUMBAI FOR RS. 3 67 50 000/-. DESPITE CALLING FOR THE DETAILS OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS NO SUCH INFO RMATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE L D AO MADE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT. 12. DURING THE SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PURCHASED PLANT AND MACHINERY OF RS. 25 60 90 000/- FROM VARI OUS COMPANIES WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FILE THE BILLS OF THOSE ASSETS AND THEREFORE T HE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THEM CO MPANY. 13. ACCORDINGLY AGAINST THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 2 75 204/- THE ASSESSMENT OF RS. 549201954/- WAS MADE AS PER ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE AC T. 14. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT( A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS NO INFORMAT ION WAS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THUS THE LD CI T (A) AFTER GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES COULD NOT OBTAIN A NY DETAILS PAGE | 29 FROM THE ASSESSEE. THUS HE DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. IN PARA 7.12 THE LD CIT(A) HE LD THAT FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 2 YEARS THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVID ED MANY OPPORTUNITIES BUT EVERY TIME ASSESSEE SOUGHT ONLY A DJOURNMENT AND DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION. HE REFERRED TO 28 OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A ) THEREAFTER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE DECIDED ALL THE GROUNDS UPHO LDING THE ACTION OF THE LD AO. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE AGGRIE VED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD AO HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 15. EVEN BEFORE US ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR OR FURNISH EITHER ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN VIEW OF THIS EVEN WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO D ISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 16. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SHE REFERRED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT A. SHE ALSO DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT A IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES STATING THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THEREFOR E THE CIT A WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAME. EVEN OTHERWIS E HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN LEARNED CIT A ASKED FOR REMAND REPORT O F AO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. EVEN OTHERWISE SHE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED O WNERSHIP USE COST OF THE ASSETS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO SUBMIT. MERELY SUBMITTING A CHART WILL NOT SHOW ELIGIBILI TY FOR CLAIM. WITH RESPECT TO THE UNSECURED LOAN THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD HAVE SUBMITTED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AS WELL PAGE | 30 AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF LOAN WHICH AS SESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO DO SO. WITH RESPECT TO THE INV ESTMENTS SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS FOR THE EXPENDITURE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FROM KNOWN SOURCE S. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY PRODUCIN G THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT SUFFICE FOR THE ALLO WANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S A SEARCH PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE AVAILAB LE ABOUT THE TAX EVASION BY ASSESSEE. ALL SOFTWARE PURCHASES AR E CONCLUSIVELY PROVED AS BOGUS. SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF I NVESTIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT HOW THE COMPANY WAS BEING RUN/ BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE DI RECTORS. IN VIEW OF THIS SHE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARN ED CIT A IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION. 17. COMING TO THE FIRST GROUND OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS A GAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR PASSING AN EX PARTE ORD ER CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD AO STATING THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT REMAIN PRESENT AS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR WAS SUFFERING CHRONI C LIVER DISEASE FOR THE PAST 4 TO 5 YEARS. IT WAS STATED THAT ANOTH ER DIRECTOR SHRI P. K. TEWARI IS ALSO SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS AILMENT S AND WAS INCARCERATED. DUE TO FINANCIAL CRISES THE BANK DUE WERE NOT PAID AND THEREFORE THE CBI COMPLAIN WAS MADE AGAINST HI M. HE ARRESTED FROM JULY 12 TO OCTOBER 2012 AND SEPTEMBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015. THEREFORE GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE APP EAL ARE ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. PAGE | 31 18. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AS SESSEE AND LOOKING AT THE PARA 7.1.1 THE NOTICE WERE ISSUED ON 24.06.2013 23.08.2013 10.10.2013 13 11 2013 04 12 2013 17 12 13 SO ON. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 15 OCCASIONS WHE N MR. PK TEWARI WAS OUT OF THE JAIL. . WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IN DETAIL ABOUT THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER IT IS APPARENT THAT ACCORDING TO THE VERSION OF THE AS SESSEE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 18/7/20 12 TO 15/10/2012. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS STARTED FROM 22/10/2013 AND ENDED ON 18/3/2013 (AS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NUMBER 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARINGS). THEREFORE IT IS APPARENT TH AT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WERE AFTER RELEASE OF THE DIRECTORS FROM THE JUDICIAL CUSTODY. THEREFORE THIS EXPLANATION DOES NOT SERV E ANY PURPOSE FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF DETAILS OR FOR APPEARING BE FORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. ABSENCE OF THE STAFF CO ULD NOT BE A VALID REASON FOR A COMPANY WHO HAS SUCH A LARGE OPE RATIONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER WITH RESPECT TO MENTAL AGONY/DEPRESSION OF THE DIRECTORS NO EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED. NO EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED THAT THERE ARE LARGE NUM BER OF CASES INVOLVED ON THE GROUP. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS WE D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO UPSET THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN FACT WE AGREE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE BUT ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY NOT SUBM ITTED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASS ESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN FACT IT IS ASSESSEE WHO I S TRYING TO SEAL PAGE | 32 ITSELF FOR THE MISDEED CONDUCTED BY IT. HENCE GROU ND NO 1 TO 6 ARE DISMISSED. 19. GROUND NO. 12-15 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE HENCE THEY ARE DISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO 7 IS ON THE BOGUS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION O N THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE MOST OF THE PURCHASE SHOWS BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE D ANY DETAILS ABOUT ITS OWNERSHIP FUNCTIONARY ETC. THE AO HAS PR OVED CONCLUSIVELY WITH THE SUPPLIERS ARE BOGUS. THE ISSU E IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHINTELS INDIA LTD VS. DCIT 2 017-TIOL- 1366-HON'BLE HIGH COURT-DEL-IT-WHEREIN BOGUS DEPRE CIATION OF SOFTWARE WAS DISALLOWED OF THE LD AO WAS CONFIRMED. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE LD HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS ALSO DISMISSED IN 2018-TIOL-16-SC-IT. THE FACTS ON THAT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. IN VI EW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD AO IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION ON THE SOFTWARE. WE CONFIRM ORDER OF THE LD CIT A . ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS. 7 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMIS SED. 21. GROUND NUMBER 8 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF SHA RE CAPITAL OF INR 15.29 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. APPAREN TLY DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TOTAL SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY OF INR 14.99 CRORES SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF INR 30 LAKHS AND UNSECURED LOAN OF INR 8 3980000/. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE DEPOS ITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED ENQUIRY LETTER UNDER SECTION 133 (6) TO ALL THE INV ESTORS WHERE FROM THE COMPANIES THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SHARE CAP ITAL NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. THE REPLY WAS RECEIVED ONLY FR OM THE DIRECTOR PAGE | 33 AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HOWEVER NO PROOF OF THEIR CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS SUBMITTED. IN C ERTAIN CASES NOTICES ALSO CAME BACK AS UNSERVED . THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF INR 1 5.29 CR ORES ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y. THE LEARNED CIT A DEALT WITH THE WHOLE ISSUE AT PARA NUMBER 7.33.2 OF HIS ORDER AT PAGE NUMBER 86 ONWARDS. HE NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS INITIAL ONUS OF PROV ING THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPIT AL RECEIVED. MOST OF THE CLAIM THE INVESTOR WERE FOUND BY HIM TO BE BASED IN KOLKATA INSPECTOR OF THE CIRCLE WAS SENT TO THAT P LACE TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS. THE COPY OF THE INSPECTOR REPORT SHOWS THAT THE CLAIMED INVESTORS ARE BOGUS. THEREFORE HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 8 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 22. GROUND NUMBER 9 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF INR 1 83980000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN R ECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS WITH RESP ECT TO THE IDENTITY OF LENDERS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON IT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFO RE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION. GROUND NUMBER 9 IS DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NUMBER 10 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF INR 3 6750000 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY AT MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY DETAILS OF INFORMA TION BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER PAGE | 34 AUTHORITIES IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE INVESTMENT IN T HE FIXED ASSETS. 24. GROUND NUMBER 11 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY OF RS. 256090000/ . AO FOUND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSEE COM PANY HAS MADE THE ABOVE PURCHASES FROM AMAR JYOTI VYAPARLTD AVITEL ELECTRONICS LTD AND SUN BROADCAST LIMITED. INQ UIRIES DURING SEARCH AS WELL AS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REVEALE D THAT THOSE COMPANIES COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY SALES TO THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY AND THERE FROM TO BE BOGUS. THE PURCHASE O F SOFTWARE WAS FOUND TO BE FROM A NONBANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE ANY BACKGROUND OR ASSET TO DEAL WITH INTO SUCH SOFTWARE. THE COMPANIES WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE BOGU S THERE WERE GLARING DIFFERENCES FOUND WITH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE FALSE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS ALSO NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE PRODUCED AND NO JUSTIFICATION COULD BE GIVEN REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THESE PURCHASES. THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT A CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 11 IS DISMI SSED. 25. ACCORDINGLY ITA NUMBER 3745/DEL/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 26. FACTS IN ITA NUMBER 3746/DEL/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007 08 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS STATED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. 27. GROUND NUMBER 1 6 OF THE APPEAL ARE ON THE PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE VIOLATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE FOR PAGE | 35 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AS THE SAME FACTS REMAIN WE DISMISS THESE GROUNDS. 28. THE GROUND NUMBER 7 AND GROUND NUMBER 8 ARE INTERRE LATED WHERE THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM ON THE PLANT AND MACHI NERY OF INR 1 67984968/ MADE BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS A ND THEREFORE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. NO DETAILS WERE FURNI SHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 7 AND 8 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 29. GROUND NUMBER 9 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF INR 4 67000000 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY. THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDE D IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 WHERE THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS C ONFIRMED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS REMAIN ING THE SAME WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO FURNISH THE DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION. GROUND NUMBER 9 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 30. GROUND NUMBER 10 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET OF INR 6.90 CRORES AT NOIDA. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR ACQUISITIO N OF THESE ASSETS. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT. GROUND NUMB ER 10 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 31. GROUND NUMBER 11 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY OF INR 1 286519625/ MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . THE PAGE | 36 FACTS RELATING TO THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. NO EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED ABOUT THE GE NUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. T HUS GROUND NUMBER 11 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 32. GROUND NUMBER 12 16 OF APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATU RE AND THEREFORE THEY ARE DISMISSED. 33. ACCORDINGLY ITA NUMBER 3746/DEL/2016 FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 IS DISMISSED . 34. ITA NUMBER 3747/DEL/2016 IS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008 09 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS IN THIS APPEAL ARE A LSO IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS STATED BY US IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 . THEREFORE THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DEALT WITH AS PER REASONS GIVEN BY US IN DECIDING THE GROUNDS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. 35. GROUND NUMBER 1 6 OF THE APPEAL ARE CLAIMING THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN VIOLATE D. THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006 07. THEREFORE FOR THE SAME REASON WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY T HEY ARE DISMISSED. 36. GROUND NUMBER 7 AND 8 ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE BOGUS CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTI NG TO RUPEES 22267114/. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE REQUISITE DETAIL FOR THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAIL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFYING THE CLA IM THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME. IDENTICAL GRO UND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 0 7 AND 2007 08 ARE DISMIS SED. THUS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER PAGE | 37 AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT N CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 7 AND 8 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 37. GROUND NUMBER 9 IS WITH RESPECT TO ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FO R WANT OF DETAILS. NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION OF INR 3 1283971/. A CCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 9 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 38. GROUND NUMBER 10 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT CHENNAI AMOUNTING TO INR 7 3931654/ FOR WHICH ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY IN FORMATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS THE IDENTICAL ISS UE AROSE IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2 007 08 NO INFORMATION IS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE THER EFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE ADDITION. AS NO INFORMAT ION IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING THIS ADDIT ION. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 10 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 39. GROUND NUMBER 11 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY OF INR 5 917066/ FOR WHICH NO INFORMATIO N WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY B EEN DECIDED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2007 08 W HERE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DISMISS GR OUND NUMBER 11 OF THE APPEAL. 40. GROUND NUMBER 12 17 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE REFORE THERE DISMISSED. 41. ACCORDINGLY ITA NUMBER 3747/DEL/2016 FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 IS DISMISSED. PAGE | 38 42. ITA NUMBER 3749/DEL/2016 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE ARO SE IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THEREFORE THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DECIDED O N THE BASIS OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY US FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008 09 AS ABOVE. 43. GROUND NUMBER 1 6 OF THE APPEAL ARE ON VIOLATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THIS ISSUE IS IDENT ICAL TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 07. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN WHILE HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE ASSESSE E WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTING ITS CASE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS HENC E DISMISSED. 44. GROUND NUMBER 7 9 ARE ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILIT Y OF DEPRECIATION. THESE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUN D NUMBER 7 8 FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION QUA THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFIRMED THIS DISALLOWANCE FOR TH E REASON OF GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION ITSELF. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR EARLIER YEARS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 7 9 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 45. GROUND NUMBER 10 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF INR 55 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM LAKSHMI EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE IDENTITY CR EDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT A PAGE | 39 NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AND THEREFORE T HE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT S IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS WHERE THE IDENTICAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS MADE. IN VI EW OF THESE FACTS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE IDENTITY CREDITWOR THINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE REJECTION OF THE ABOVE INVESTMEN T IN THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCOR DINGLY GROUND NUMBER 10 IS DISMISSED. 46. GROUND NUMBER 11 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF INR 1 3178112/ ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MAC HINERY. IDENTICAL ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED LOW ER AUTHORITIES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CHANGE I N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAI LS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUCH PURCHASES WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN CONFIRMING THE AB OVE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 11 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 47. GROUND NUMBER 12 17 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. HENCE THEY ARE DISMISSED. 48. ITA NUMBER 3750/DEL/2016 IS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011 12 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS IN THIS YEAR ARE A LSO IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHERE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED . 49. GROUND NUMBER 1 6 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT T O THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE WE DISMISS T HESE GROUNDS. 50. GROUND NUMBER 7 -9 ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE BOGUS CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO INR 4 30162904/ ON THE P LANT AND PAGE | 40 MACHINERY. THESE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUND N UMBER 7 AND 18 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS. FOR T HE SAME REASONS GIVEN THEREIN WE DISMISS GROUND NUMBER 7-9 OF THE APPEAL. 51. GROUND NUMBER 10 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANC E U/S 14 A OF RUPEES 2293450 IS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SU BMIT THE DETAILS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN PARA NUMBER 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY REPLY TO THE ABOVE QUERY. THEREBY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE APPLYING THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 8D AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF RUPEES 2293450/. BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT A NO JUSTIFICATION WAS GIVEN BY THE A PPELLANT FOR THIS DISALLOWANCE. AS THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES WE DO NOT FIND INFIRMITY IN THEIR ORDER IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 10 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 52. GROUND NUMBER 11 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF/DISALLOWANCE OF INR 2 385113587 BEING THE VARIOU S EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE OPENING STOCK OF RS. 296397855/. BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS SESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE E WIT HOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME WITH THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS AND THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE THUS NO INFIRMITY CAN BE FO UND WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED TO SHOW THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENS ES CLAIMED PAGE | 41 ON HOW THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO. TH E ABOVE ADDITION AS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEARCH AND SEI ZURE OPERATION U/S 132 AND THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE REV ENUE. AT ALL THE TIMES THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE W ERE AVOIDED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE CONFIRM THE ACTIONS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF INR 2 385113587/ ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE INCLUDING OPENING STOCK. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 11 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 53. GROUND NUMBER 12 17 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. 54. ACCORDINGLY ITA NUMBER 3750/DEL/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 IS DISMISSED. 55. THUS ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVI NG THE ABOVE STATED ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/11/2019. - SD/- SD/- (K.N.CHARY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 11/11/2019 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI PAGE | 42 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER