TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9,50,000/-) by Manoj Kumar Partner. The addition was liable to be deleted considering the evidence and settled principles of law relied upon by the appellant. 1.1 That the addition confirmed is based on mere assumptions and conjectures as the facts and evidence recorded on oath, based on the verified bank accounts by the Assessing Officer, have not been properly appreciated and considered for the assumed addition of Rs. 9,50,000/-. 1.2 That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not infer and indicate an iota of evidence that the said capital contribution by partner related to the funds of Partnership firm. Thus, the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court & Other Hon'ble High Courts relied upon by appellant were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, Partner had introduced cash amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- on 01/04/2009 in his capital account which was claimed to have been introduced out of cash available from salary and other receipts. The said claim was also not accepted and the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- was advanced from Syndicate Bank through RTGS on 25/05/2009 by Shri Jagdish Chander S/o Shri Ram Niwas having PAN-AASPC2464L to Shri Manoj Kumar, copy of Bank Account was also furnished. 7. It was also stated that the statement of Shri Jagdish Chander was recorded behind the back of the assessee under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of bank account of Shri Jagdish Chander i.e; the person from whom he received the loan therefore the addition made in the hands of the assessee firm was not justified. It was further submitted that the assessee had given explanation about the source of the contribution by the Partner who himself was an assessee and admitted having made the deposit with the assessee firm, therefore the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not justified, reliance was placed on the following case laws: * CIT Vs. Metachem Industries reported at [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP) * CIT Vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance reported at [1983] 141 ITR 706(All) * CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India reported at [2007] 208 CTR 457 (P&H) * CIT Vs. Burma Electro Corporatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfactory explanation and produced the person who has deposited the amount, then the burden of the firm is discharged and in that case that credit entry cannot be treated to be the income of the firm for the purposes of income-tax. It is open for the Assessing Officer to take appropriate action under section 69 against the person who has not been able to explain the investment. In the present case, there was the concurrent finding of both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as of the Tribunal that the firm had satisfactorily explained the aforesaid entries. Therefore, no addition in the instant case could be made in the hands of the assessee-firm on account of the cash credits in the names of its partners. 11.2 Similar view has been tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer made additions to the returned income on account of unexplained cash credits in the capital accounts of the partners. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the additions. On second appeal, the Tribunal found that it could not be established that the partners had sufficient funds in their possession to prove that said investments were made from that found in the capital accounts. The concerned partners, however, admitted to have made those investments. The Tribunal finally deleted the additions on the ground that the revenue and failed to establish the availability of funds at the time of investment with the assessee and further to bring on record any material to indicate that those unexplained investments were the profits of the ass....