2023 (5) TMI 312 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed, assessment order upheld with additions. Assessee's claims lack evidence. Decision on 10.04.2023.

Shri Vinod K. Faria Versus DCIT (OSD) -II, Central Rang 7 Mumbai

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the assessment order and confirming all additions. The assessee failed to provide documentary ... Unexplained/unaccounted investment u/s. 69A - assessee had made investment in a SRA project of Sadabahar CHS at Dharavi and the evidences related to the said project was seized during the course of the search/survey as loose paper - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to point out that the assessee has not complied with the notices neither before the A.O. nor before the first appellate authority. The assessee has also failed to furnish any documentary evidences in support of his claim, nor has the assessee contradicted the statement of Shri Jiva Rathinam by any supporting evidences. It is also observed that the assessee was given several opportunities before the A.O. and also before the ld. CIT(A) during which the assessee has failed to bring any evidences to contradict the said fact. The assessee has also failed to furnish any documentary evidences in support of its claim even before us. In the absence of any contradictory facts, we hold that the addition made u/s. 69 of the Act is to be sustained. Ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition as unexplained, unaccounted investment u/s. 69 - HELD THAT:- The assessee during the assessment proceeding has consented that the tenancy rights were acquired and pay orders for the same was obtained by four parties namely Shakti Traders, Saurabh Enterprises, Prince & Sons and Omkar Trading and that the power of attorney was executed by these parties in favour of the assessee. As observed that the assessee has failed to furnish any confirmation from the said parties that the pay orders had been obtained from them. Assessee has merely produced an unregistered power of attorney and nothing more to contradict the said fact. The assessee has failed to substantiate the payments received and paid to the said parties before the lower authorities. Assessee has also failed to furnish any documentary evidences to prove that the impugned amount was not unaccounted investment before us. For this reason, we hereby confirm the said addition made u/s. 69 . Addition u/s.69 - unexplained /unaccounted investment related to the payments made to Shri Milan Dalal - HELD THAT:- As observed that the statement of Shri Dilip Patel was not rebutted by the assessee and also the fact that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidences to rebut the stand of the A.O. that the impugned amount is unexplained and unaccounted investment made by the assessee as per section 69 of the Act. The assessee has failed to substantiate his contention by way of any supporting evidences even during the second appellate proceeding. Hence, we are inclined to dismiss ground raised by the assessee. Unexplained income relating to unsecured loans taken from various parties - HELD THAT:- As evident that the assessee has not discharged his onus by proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors which is mandated under the provisions of the law. The assessee has not filed any additional evidences before us to substantiate her claim. We hereby confirm the said addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the loans, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. Hence, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition u/s. 69 as unexplained and unaccounted investment - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to point out that the assessee has failed to furnish any confirmation letter from the alleged parties whom according to the assessee had made the impugned payment. The assessee has failed to substantiate both the payments amounting to Rs.17,10,000/- each, thereby confirming the same to be as unexplained and unaccounted income as per section 69 of the Act and hence the impugned addition is to be added as unexplained and unaccounted investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Hence, ground is dismissed. Undisclosed and unexplained investment as cash payment made - HELD THAT:- Even before us, the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidences to show that the impugned amount was out of the advance received from M/s. Genelec Ltd. Since the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim, we hereby confirm the impugned addition. Hence, ground raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Addition as unaccounted, undisclosed income on the basis of the seized loose papers - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the assessee has failed to explain the sources of payment to the above mentioned parties neither before the lower authorities nor before us. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in upholding the impugned addition. Hence, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Cash payment made as per the loose papers seized from the business premises of the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to point out that the assessee has failed to substantiate the fact that the impugned payment was made on behalf of M/s. Genelec Ltd. to Shri Milan Dalal for providing consultancy services. The assessee has also failed to corroborate the fact that the said payment was made from the advance received from the M/s. Genelec Ltd. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the impugned addition. Hence, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained investment on account of bogus loans - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee has not furnished the original copies of the loan confirmations and even otherwise the confirmation letters were filed without the address and PAN of the creditors. Since the assessee has failed to prove the loan transaction to the satisfaction of the A.O., the same was added as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. Assessee has also failed to furnish the relevant documentary evidences neither before the first appellate authority nor before us and, hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We hereby dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Unexplained investment on account of bogus loans - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee has not furnished the original copies of the loan confirmations and even otherwise the confirmation letters were filed without the address and PAN of the creditors. Since the assessee has failed to prove the loan transaction to the satisfaction of the A.O., the same was added as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has also failed to furnish the relevant documentary evidences neither before the first appellate authority nor before us and, hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We hereby dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Addition as additional business income - HELD THAT:- The primary onus is casted upon the assessee who in the present case has failed to discharge his onus by contradicting the facts found during search proceedings and it is also pertinent to point out that the said facts found in the loose papers was also corroborated by the statement of the assessee though was retracted after a period of 2 years 8 months. From the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim neither before the lower authorities nor before us inspite of several opportunities being rendered to the assessee. 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.