2018 (5) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained partners capital investment - Held that - CIT-A examined the individual source of income in the hands of the each of the four partners vis- -vis capital introduced and has given a finding that Shri Om Prakash is a only partner who has the adequate agricultural income to cover the investment in the share capital and as far as other three partners are concerned, there is a short fall of ₹ 3,90,137/-, the source of which remain unexplained. It was accordingly held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the partners capital investment to the extent to ₹ 44,09,863/- has been explained. The balance amount of ₹ 3,90,137/- remains unexplained and to that extent the addition made by the AO u/s 68 was sustained. There is nothing on record to controvert the said findings of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of various expenses - CIT(A) while confirming the said disallowance held that the telephone and travelling expenses do have an element of personal expenses and he therefore, confirmed the same - Held that - No infirmity in the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby affirmed. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?3,90,137 in total income under section 68.
2. Disallowance of telephone and traveling expenses.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the addition of ?3,90,137 in total income under section 68. The assessee firm's four partners contributed ?12 lakhs each as capital, claiming it was from the sale of agricultural produce. The AO rejected the claim due to no agricultural income declared in partners' tax returns. The CIT(A) found no dispute regarding the partners' agricultural land ownership and considered evidence like confirmations, Jamabandi, and agricultural produce sale proof. The CIT(A) held that partners failing to report agricultural income in their returns should face consequences individually, but the firm, as a separate entity, provided necessary details on capital received. It was found that one partner had sufficient agricultural income, but for the other three, there was a shortfall of ?3,90,137, unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld the addition under section 68, as the partners' capital investment was explained partially. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal's first two grounds.

2. The appeal also contested the disallowance of ?12,330 out of ?40,660 for various expenses. The CIT(A) sustained this disallowance, stating that telephone and traveling expenses could include personal elements. The Tribunal found no issue with the CIT(A)'s decision and affirmed it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 27/03/2018.