TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, assessment order upheld with additions. Assessee's claims lack evidence. Decision on 10.04.2023.</h1> <h3>Shri Vinod K. Faria Versus DCIT (OSD) -II, Central Rang 7 Mumbai</h3> Shri Vinod K. Faria Versus DCIT (OSD) -II, Central Rang 7 Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of assessment order u/s. 143 r.w.s. 153A of the Act.2. Addition of unexplained/unaccounted investments u/s. 69A and 69 of the Act.3. Addition of unexplained income related to unsecured loans.4. Addition of unexplained and unaccounted cash payments.5. Estimation of business income.Summary:1. Validity of Assessment Order:The assessee challenged the assessment order passed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given several opportunities to present his case before the lower authorities but failed to comply. Hence, the ground was dismissed.2. Addition of Unexplained/Unaccounted Investments:- SRA Project Investment (Rs. 6 lacs): The Tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to contradict the findings of unaccounted investment.- Tenancy Rights (Rs. 72 lacs): The Tribunal confirmed the addition due to the assessee's failure to provide substantial evidence or confirmation from parties involved.- Payments to Shri Milan Dalal (Rs. 2.25 crores): The Tribunal sustained the addition as the assessee could not rebut the statement of Shri Dilip Patel or provide supporting documentary evidence.- Unsecured Loans (Rs. 1,05,08,000): The Tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditors.- Various Cash Payments: The Tribunal confirmed additions related to various cash payments (Rs. 34.20 lacs, Rs. 1.70 lacs, Rs. 4.41 crores, Rs. 10 lacs, Rs. 2.56 crores, Rs. 30 lacs, Rs. 25 lacs, Rs. 50 lacs, Rs. 20 lacs, Rs. 8 lacs, Rs. 6.80 crores, Rs. 21 lacs, and Rs. 15.70 lacs) as the assessee failed to substantiate the claims with documentary evidence.3. Addition of Unexplained Income Related to Unsecured Loans:The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 15,70,000/- as the assessee did not provide original loan confirmations or sufficient details to prove the transactions.4. Estimation of Business Income:The Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 19 lacs as the assessee did not substantiate that the estimation had no nexus with the search materials.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming all the additions and the validity of the assessment order. The assessee failed to substantiate claims with sufficient documentary evidence despite several opportunities provided. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 10.04.2023.
TaxTMI 