Addition u/s 69 based on loose papers sustained on failure to contradict facts found during search

Vinod K. Faria Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on unaccounted, undisclosed income on the basis of the seized loose papers sustained as assessee failed to discharge his onus by contradicting the facts found during search proceedings.

Facts- The assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Mayur Ply ‘N’ Veneers and M/s. Mahavir Glass & Aluminum and is engaged in the business of trading in plywood’s, veneers glass and aluminum. The assessee is also a director in M/s. Genelac Ltd. (a sick company) 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 dated 28.12.2010 u/s. 153A/144 of the Act by making various additions/disallowances and thereby determining the total income at Rs.20, 19,75,000/-.

Conclusion- 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point out that the said facts found in the loose papers was also corroborated by the statement of the assessee though was retracted after a period of 2 years 8 months.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.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.