M/S VIDARBHA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -6(1), NAGPUR

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in adding the alleged undisclosed income of Rs.30 lakhs, we note that the CIT(A)'s corresponding detailed discussion to this effect reads as under :

Suffice to say, it has come on record with the able assistance coming from both the sides that this is an instance of a search action dated 07.11.2006 carried out by the department u/sec.132 of the Act. And that the departmental authorities had come across the relevant seized material representing a book marked as “Annexure B-1 to 6” [pages 1 to 17] during this search indicating assessee’s cash payments of Rs.30 lakhs for acquiring plot/flat/shop, as the case may be, involving four instances of Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.7.5 lakhs [twice], respectively made to the another searched person Shri Vilas Harde. This made the learned lower authorities to treat the sum total of the foregoing four instances to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs as assessee’s undisclosed income. It is in this backdrop that the things are crystal clear before us that the impugned addition is indeed based in seized material only carrying presumption of correctness u/sec.292C of the Act.

Faced with the situation, the assessee’s case before us is that the department has failed to prove the clinching nexus that Shri Vilas Harde herein is assessee’s director or share holder, as the case may be and, therefore, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. Learned counsel next invited our attention to the tribunal’s first round order dated 26.06.2011 setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer in very terms. We are afraid that even if it is accepted that the 7 ITA.No.273/NAG./2018 learned lower authorities have failed to prove assessee’s nexus with Shri Vilas Harde, we are of the considered view that such a lapse would not invalidate the impugned addition itself which is based on seized incriminating material only. We reiterate that this tribunal’s another coordinate bench’s order in Shri Vilas Harde’s case (supra) has already examined the entire facts and circumstances in concluding that the said cash entries of Rs.30 lakhs indeed involved cash payments by assessee only. We find no merit in assessee’s instant technical arguments in these facts and circumstances. The impugned addition stand confirmed therefore. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.