TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proved - Held that:- Since no such evidence regarding creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of transaction could be produced, hence addition confirmed - Decided against assessee Introduction of capital by partners - Held that:- This issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement rendered in the case of Pankaj Dyestuff and hence, no addition could be made in the hands of the firm but the revenue is at liberty to reopen assessment of the partners as per law and this issue can be examined in their cases as to whether they could explain the source of investments in the assessee firm or not - Decided in favor of assessee Deletion of addition made in hands of partners in their individual capacity on protective basis - Held that:- It is found that entire addition in both the years was deleted by CIT(A) on this basis that substantive addition has already been made in the case of the firm M/s. Maruti Developers and therefore, the protective addition made in the hands of the individual partner is to be deleted. Hence, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis - Decided against Revenue - I.T.A. No.2080, 2081/Ahd/2008 & 398, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the assessment of this assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 05.01.2007. Since the proviso to Section 147 is not applicable in the present case and the notice was issued by the A.O. after recording the reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below regarding reopening of the assessment u/s 147 and hence, ground No.1 of the assessee s appeal is rejected in both the years in the case of the firm M/s. Maruti Developers. 6. The issue in dispute on merit is regarding addition of Rs.70.45 lacs and 13.25 lacs made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of plot booking advances and capital introduced by the partners respectively in assessment years 2001-02 and of Rs.1,11,500/- in assessment year 2002-03 in respect of plot booking advance treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 7. It was agreed by both the side that the issue in dispute is identical in both the years and the facts of the assessment year 2001-02 can be considered and on the basis of this, the matter in both the years can be decided. Regarding introduction of capital by the partners in the firm of Rs.13.25 lacs in ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r seen. Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence regarding creditworthiness of the alleged depositors. Before us also, no such evidence regarding creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of transaction could be produced by the Ld. A.R. and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, we confirm the addition of Rs.70.45 lacs in assessment year 2001-02 and Rs.1,11,500/- in assessment year 2002-03 u/s 68 in respect of plot booking advances alleged to have been received by the assessee. 10. Regarding introduction of capital by the partners in assessment year 2001-02 of Rs.13.25 lacs, we find that this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Pankaj Dyestuff (supra) and hence, no addition could be made in the hands of the firm but the revenue is at liberty to reopen assessment of the partners as per law and this issue can be examined in their cases as to whether they could explain the source of investments in the assessee firm or not. The addition of Rs.13.25 lacs is deleted in assessment year 2001-02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided in assessment year 2002-03. 13. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a combined order in the case of Shri R N Patel for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 and the last para of his order is the relevant para which is reproduced below: I have carefully considered the arguments given by assessing officer the submissions of Id. AR. As stated by Id. AR the addition on substantive basis is already made in case of the firm M/s Maruti Developers. As such addition made on protective basis in assessee's case is required to be deleted as genuineness of investment is required to be verified in case of assessee's who claims to have made investment for which addition on substantive basis is also made. In the instant case, investment to the extent of Rs.84,47,500/- is claimed to have been made by the firm M/s Maruti Developers addition in their case is made on substantive basis. This investment is also reflected in the balance sheet of partnership firm-M/s Maruti Developers hence, in my opinion genuineness of the same is required to be verified in the case of the firm. The balance investment of Rs.27,00,000/- is claimed to have been made by another firm M/s Hari Om Dyg. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
