IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.989/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2002-03) M/s. Paresh Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, st NO.104, 1 Floor, Central Circle 1(4), 56 Centre Point, Residency Bangalore. Road, Bangalore-560 025 PAN AAACP 8236G Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 04.10.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2016. ORDER Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by assessee is directed against order dt.15.6.2010 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore for Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. None has appeared on behalf of assessee when apepal was called for hearing. It transpired from record that despite repeated notices issued through RPAD, assessee is not responding and pursuing this appeal. Some 2 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 of notices have received back unserved with postal remark Addressee Left . Inthese facts and circumstances of case, we propose to dispose off this appeal ex-parte. 3. assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal : 5. authorities further failed to arrive at conclusion that there exists complexity in transactions of appellant and without making honest effort to understand transactions invoked provisions of section 142(2A of Act under facts and circumstances of case. 3 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 6. Without prejudice appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on total income as determined by ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.92,62,153 as against returned income of Rs.17,62,153 under facts and circumstances of case. 4. We have heard learned D.R. and considered relevant material on record. assessee has challenged validity of assessment as well as directions issued under Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 4 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 'the Act') for getting accounts of assessee audited. CIT (Appeals) has given detailed finding in para 2.1.2 on issue of validity of direction for statutory audit under Section 142(2A) of Act as under : 5 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 6 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 7 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 In absence of any contrary facts and arguments brought before us, we do not find any error or illegality in order of CIT (Appeals) for this issue. 5. AS regards validity of assessment under Section 153A, CIT (Appeals) has dealt with this issue in paras 2.2.2 & 2.2.3 as under : 8 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 9 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 In absence of any specific illegality or error pointed out in finding of CIT (Appeals), we uphold order of CIT (Appeals) on this issue. 6. next issue is regarding addition of Rs.75 lakhs on account of share application money introduced by assessee in books of accounts. We find that CIT (Appeals) has dealt with each and every argument of assessee and given finding that assessee has failed to explain source of share application money and therefore addition made under Section 69 of Act was confirmed by CIT (Appeals). relevant conclusion of CIT (Appeals) is given in para 2.3.3 as under : 10 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 We find that despite sufficient opportunity was given to assessee, assessee has not produced any evidence to prove identity of share 11 ITA No.989/Bang/2010 applicant. Since it is private limited company and shares of private limited company can be issued only to known and close persons of existing share-holders/promoters of company therefore, it is primary onus of assessee to prove genuineness of transaction. Hence we do not find any error or illegality in order of CIT (Appeals) on this issue. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 13th Oct., 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (A.K. GARODIA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dt.13.10.2016. *Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File. By Order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore M/s. Paresh Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore