TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is also a director in M/s. Genelac Ltd. (a sick company as per the regulations of BIFR) and Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. which is into investments. Pursuant to the search and seizure action u/s. 132(1) of the Act and survey action u/s. 133A of the Act carried out at the business premises and residential premises of the assessee/ Milan Dalal Group of company dated 30.05.2008, it is observed that the unaccounted cash payments for purchase of immovable property, transfer of tenancy, development rights, share investments, accommodation entries for bogus loans, misappropriation of funds of companies, unaccounted cash sales of galas of high-speed project, cash payments through hawala parties in India as well as outside India, understating value of immovable property were alleged to have been found and relevant evidences were said to be seized pertaining to the said allegations. The assessee is said to have failed to furnish the income tax return inspite of several opportunities given by the A.O. and had filed the return of income on 19.11.2010, which was after the specified period and hence the A.O. treated the returns as nonest and invalid. The A.O. passed an ex parte order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authorities without any justification and prayed that the same may be deleted. 9. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue, on the other hand, controverted the said facts and stated that the statement of Shri Jiva Rathinam indicated complete details of cash payments made by the assessee which was unaccounted and unexplained investment of the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the seized documents contain details of the assessee s unaccounted investment of Rs.70 lacs which was further corroborated by the statement of Shri Jiva Rathinam recorded u/s. 131 of the Act who had admitted payment of Rs.80,11,160/- in Q. No. 5 of the statement. It is also observed that the date wise details of the said payment made by the assessee was also given by Shri Jiva Rathinam vide his letter dated 19.06.2008, out of which Rs.74,11,616/- related to A.Y. 2008-09 and the balance of Rs.6 lacs related to the impugned year. The assessee s contention that the joint development agreement with Smt. Daisy Rani wife of Shri Jiva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. It is observed that the assessee has failed to furnish any confirmation from the said parties that the pay orders had been obtained from them. The 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. The 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 of the Act. Hence, ground no. 4 is hereby dismissed. 13. Ground no. 5 relates to the addition of Rs.2,25,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained /unaccounted investment related to the payments made to Shri Milan Dalal. It is observed that the assessee has entered into a MOU dated 23.09.2016 with Shri Milan Dalal, Director of M/s. Grishma Construction and Trading Pvt. Ltd. for acquisitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities nor have the assessee filed any documentary evidences to show that these were not bogus unsecured loans. The assessee is said to have filed loan confirmations before the first appellate authority which had sent the same for verification to the A.O. The A.O. observed that the xerox copies of the confirmation letter was defective either without the address and some without PAN numbers and all these letters had no bank details, copy of IT acknowledgment, balance sheet of the loan depositors, etc. were not furnished. The assessee is also said to have not filed the original copies of the loan confirmation from around 25 parties. The lower authorities have confirmed the said addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has failed to prove his claim. 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 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 no. 8 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 21. Ground no. 9 relates to the addition of Rs.4,41,00,000/- as unaccounted, undisclosed income on the basis of the seized loose papers. It is observed that the loose paper no. 32 of Annexure A1 seized during the search/survey at the business premises of the assessee reveals cash payments to various parties namely Rs.2,12,00,000/- to Shri Chetan, Rs.72,00,000/- to Salim Chawl and Rs.1,57,00,000/- for obtaining demand drafts. The lower authorities had confirmed the said addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim by any documentary evidences. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has contended that the payment for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim and has failed to explain the source of the cash payment made against Salim Chawl. 27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim during the assessment proceeding. Even before us the assessee has not filed any supporting documents to substantiate the fact that the said alleged payments was made for vacating the shed at Jogeshwari and that the source of the same was from the funds of the HUF. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground no. 11 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 28. Ground no. 12 relates to the addition of Rs.30 lacs being the payment made to Shri Jivan and Architect Shri Hingu. It is observed that from the seized loose paper nos. 21 and 22 to Annexure A4, the assessee has made unaccounted cash payments to Shri Jivan and Shri Hingu. Since the assessee has failed to explain the said source, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 29. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atel after receiving the impugned amount from M/s. Genelec Ltd. The lower authorities have confirmed the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has not explained the sources of the impugned cash payments before the lower authorities. In our considered view, the assessee has also failed to substantiate his claim even before us. From the said observation, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We hereby dismiss ground no. 14 raised by the assessee. 33. Ground no. 15 relates to an addition of Rs.20 lacs as unexplained unaccounted investment u/s. 69 of the Act on the basis of the loose papers reflecting alleged payment made to Shri Salim Babaji. The assessee contended that the said payment was brokerage charges paid in respect of purchase of land out of funds from Vinod Faria HUF. The assessee has failed to explain the source of the expenditure incurred by way of brokerage charges paid to Shri Salim Babaji either before the A.O. or during the remand proceeding and even before us. The assessee has failed to furnish the details of Shri Salim Babaji to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness mandated as per the provisions of the law. Hence, we here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention, we are inclined to dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 37. Ground no. 19 relates to an addition of Rs.15,70,000/- as unexplained investment on account of bogus loans. The assessee has contended that the impugned amount was received from various loan creditors whose confirmation letters were said to be produced during the assessment proceeding by the assessee. 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. 38. Ground no. 20 relates to an addition of Rs.19 lacs as additional business income. It is observed that the assessee had filed return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresenting 1000 s in code words especially in loose papers which are intended solely for the purpose of evading tax involving business transaction. Considering the nature of business of the assessee, these cannot be meager transaction of 1000 s for high value properties involved in the transaction between the assessee and Shri Milan Dalal. We have another reason to disagree that loose papers denominate figure in thousands. The last figure on page no. 16 is 0.40 , if we considered it to be thousands, then it would be Rs.500/- only. It is beyond justification that a person will write down a figure of Rs.500/- in the seized documents, which was in possession of the assessee. Even otherwise the facts are distinguishable to the present case where the quantum is not in dispute. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
