ITAT: Addition made solely on the basis of one dummy director not sustainable

In M/S. Frost Falcon Distilleries v. DCIT, Haryana [ITA No.7713/Del/2018 & ITA No.7946/Del/2018 (Cross Appeals) Assessment Year: 2008-09 dated October 07, 2021], M/S. Frost Falcon Distilleries ("Appellant") filed an appeal against Order dated September 04, 2018 ("Impugned order") passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2008-2009.

In this case, the Assessing Officer ("AO"), after a search operation, framed an Assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the IT Act") and subsequently an addition of was made on account of unaccounted money introduced into the Appellant company by four parties in the form of share capital. The AO held that the aforesaid Companies were non-existent through which the Appellant introduced his own unaccounted money.

During the survey action, the department recorded a statement from the Director wherein he stated that he was only dummy director of the Appellant company and his company; M/s Aachman Vanijya (P) Ltd. (the Company concerning the Dummy Director which was an investor company to the Appellant) was a paper company and no genuine business activities were carried out by the said company.

The Appellant challenged the Impugned order of the AO wherein the first appellate authority accepted their plea and granted relief.

After taking perusal of all the facts and evidences of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Authority ("ITAT"), New Delhi held that the addition can be made in case of completed assessment only on the basis of incriminating material found during the search action, and therefore, in the Tribunal’s view, the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of on the basis of sole statement of one dummy director, recorded during the survey action in case of the Appellant company, without confronting the same to the Appellant, wasn’t held to be justified.

The impugned addition was, therefore, ordered to be deleted. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Appellant was allowed.