TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and also a confirmation. Therefore, the assessee has substantially proved the source of cash deposited in the bank account. Further the Assessing Officer doubted that the partnership deed was not registered, is also cannot be made a basis for not treating the firm as a genuine. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 543/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma Rajnikant Jhada (CA) Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT) ORDER Per : Bhagchand, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order dated 11/03/2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Aligarh at Jaipur (Camp Office) for the A.Y. 2010-11. The only issue involved in this appeal is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank of Baroda, Johari Bazar Branch, jaipur was out of the cash received from M/s Kailash Yadav Company where the assessee is a partner. The books of account maintained with M/s Kailash Yadav Company support and shows the cash withdrawals by the assessee. The assessee produced books of account of the firm before the Assessing Officer, the capital account of the partners and the income tax return filed by the firm was also produced. The assessee also filed partnership deed of the firm and also confirmation from the same and it is contended that the evidences submitted by the assessee are not correctly appreciated. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 300 ITR 372 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has substantially proved the source of cash deposited in the bank account. Further the Assessing Officer doubted that the partnership deed was not registered, is also cannot be made a basis for not treating the firm as a genuine. The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid Vs. ACIT (supra) has held as under:- The question No. 1 relates to disallowance on account of cash credits found in the books of the assessees. ₹ 16,000 was alleged to have been borrowed to have been by Sri Devendra Sankhla and ₹ 16,000 was allegedly borrowed from one Ramulal. Assessee has produced the confirmation letters from both the creditors and has also produced Sri Devendra Sankhla before the AO. Sri Devendra Sankhla on bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, is not relevant for the purposes of rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee, and make additions of such deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources by invoking s. 68 of the IT Act, unless it can be shown by the Department that the source of such money comes from the assessee himself or such source could be traced to the assessee itself. In the present case while existence of Sri Devendra Sankhla the creditor is not in doubt, and he has admitted to have advanced the loan to the assessee. The fact that the explanation furnished by Sri Devendra Sankhla about his source of such advancement has not been accepted by the Revenue authority cannot lead to any presumption that the source of such advancement by Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nership to the ornaments, the assessing authority concluded that the ornaments belonged to the assessee and those findings were affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Merely because the explanation furnished by these three persons about the purpose for which the gold ornaments were delivered for making new ornaments was found not acceptable that could not provide any a nexus between the facts and conclusion reached by drawing an inference that the primary gold and gold ornaments belonged to the assessee. Thus, the value of gold and the gold ornaments could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts, I find merit in the contention of the ld. AR, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
