9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition u/s 69C of the Act on account of capital introduced by the partner of Rs. 17,14,000/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition u/s 69C of the Act on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 33,00,000/-. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Condonation of Delay: 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 266 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. There were condonation petition and affidavit filed by the assessee. The reasons specified therein for the delay was negligent attitude of the Accountant, who was thrown out of the job and the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was found in the drawer of the Accountant. 3.1. In view of above the, Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, the delay in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from Bhadresh Shah of Rs. 14,00,000/-, should be treated as unexplained expenditure. 5.3. The AO further concluded that the booking advance taken in cash totalling to Rs. 10,27,250/- from nine parties also could not be explained by the assessee and in turn could not be verified for want of evidence except index copy of land. 5.4. Thus, the AO made aggregate addition of Rs. 60,31,250/- under section 69C of the Act. 5.5. During the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT (A), the assessee submitted the details and also the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the information to the AO for the remand report. The AO submitted the remand report. Further the Ld.CIT(A) forwarded the copy of the remand report to the assessee, who as a rejoinder filed a reply dated 21.02.2019. The Ld CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence. 5.6. The Ld.CIT(A) after concluding that the explanation provided by the assessee towards source of capital of Rs. 17,14,000/- as not satisfactory and unsecured loans of Rs. 19,00,000/- and Rs. 14,00,000/-, totalling to Rs. 34,00,000 are not genuine, confirmed the addition. 5.7. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore seeking relief merely on technical ground is not tenable. Therefore, relying on facts and the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court the ground of appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 2 11. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 17,14,000/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of the capital introduced by the partner. 11.1. During the course of hearing, the Ld.Counsel took us through the details provided by the assessee during the remand report proceedings which were re-produced by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order. 11.2. While confirming the addition of Rs. 17,14,000/- made by the AO, Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the sources of the amounts of Capital introduced by the partner were not satisfactorily explained with supporting evidence. He also concluded that non-filing of return by the partner proves that the partner i.e. Dhawal B. Patel has no creditworthiness. 11.3. The assessee, before Ld.CIT(A), relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT Vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries (ITR No.241 of 1993) and Odedara Construction reported at 362 ITR 338. The Ld.CIT(A) reproduced the part of later decision and rejected the applicabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese amounts represent undisclosed profits/unexplained credits and to assess them in their hands in their own individual assessment. Thus, the amounts credited to the partners' bank account cannot be assessed in the hands of the firm. Once the partner has owned that the money deposited in his accounts are of his own, the AO is entitled to and may proceed against the partner and assess the same in his individual hands. 11.6. Considering the material available on records and arguments of the aggrieved parties, we are of the opinion that Ld.CIT(A) has not taken into consideration, principles to the facts of the judicial pronouncement as referred above in case of CIT Vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries (ITR No.241 of 1993) and has erred in confirming the addition. Therefore, the ground of the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 3 12. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of unsecured loans. 12.1. This amount of Rs. 33,00,000/- is represented by two loans - 1. Rs. 19,00,000/- from Jadhav Tractors 2. Rs. 14,00,000/- from Bhadreshkumar S. Shah 12.2. During the course of hearing, the Ld.Counsel explained w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
