9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri Aalok Mittal, Advocate ORDER Rajive Bhalla , J. (Oral): The revenue challenges, order dated 18.1.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar and order dated 21.9.1992 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, by alleging that following questions of law arise for adjudication:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee holding that such addition, if any, need be made in the respective hands of the partners and not in the case of the assessee?" Counsel for the revenue submits that Shri K.L. Taneja and Shri Naveen Taneja, partners of the firm received money from abroad and it was immediately transferred to the account of the firm. The Assessing Officer, therefore, rightly treated the aforesaid amount as inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the parties, perused the impugned orders and the substantial question of law. Admittedly, partners of the assessee firm received certain amounts which were transferred to the account of the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer, treated the transactions as received from unexplained and undisclosed sources and as such added them to the total income of the assessee-firm. The Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained no addition was called for in the hands of the firm. The reliance is placed on the following decisions to support his contention:- i) Narayandas Kedarnath vs. CIT, (1952)22 ITR 15 (Bombay) ii) Sugar Chand Chandanmal vs. ITO, (1977) TaxLR 1046 (Cal) iii) Indo-European Machinery Company vs. CIT (1955)28 ITR 433 (Punjab) iv) Balbhadra Chand Munna Lal vs. CIT (1959)331 ITR 781 4.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished explanation that it had received funds from its partners. The firm, having disclosed the source of funds, it was absolved of its liability, if any, to explain the source of funds. The onus to explain receipts of the money, lay upon the partners who should have been asked to disclose the source of funds. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), affirmed by the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
