9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to be incorrect or false in any manner - The interest of the revenue is also safeguarded as the Income Tax Officer has been given the liberty to consider the said credits in the hands of the partners if he is not satisfied with the sources of investment of cash credits in the accounts of the partners. - Decided against the revenue. - TAX APPEAL No. 2496 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2012 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MS SONIA GOKANI JJ. Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SR, ADV. with MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s): 1, ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.6.2010 raising following question for our consideration:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. The decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Timber reported as 229 ITR 505 (M.P.) is on the issue that whether the case credit entry in the books of firm in the names of the partner is subject to tax either u/s 68 or u/s.69 of the IT Act, 1961. The Hon'ble High Court has pronounced that there is a distinction between the two sections i.e. Section 68 applies where a sum is found credited in the books; whereas Section 69 applies to unexplained investment which was found recorded in the books of account. So it is apparent that the issue as settled by the Hon'ble High Court has nothing to do with the issue now raked up in this appeal. Likewise, in the case of Anand Ram Raitani reported as 223 ITR 544 (Gau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due legal action in the hands of the partner considering the capital introduced by them in their respective hands, therefore, in our considered opinion, being within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court, the direction given by the Learned CIT(Appeals) deserved to be upheld and the deletion of addition in the hands of assessee-firm is hereby confirmed. With the result, ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the material on record, we do not find any error in the Tribunal's decision. 5. In somewhat similar factual background this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income -Tax vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries (surpa) had upheld the decision of the Tribunal making follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
