9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces produced - As regards, Shri Maganlal Jhaviya, it is seen that he has introduced an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- as capital into the firm - no other sources of income on fund has been shown as available to him for introduction - 3 acres of land, however, fertile will not be able to generate income leave alone any savings so as to enable this person to introduce capital of ₹ 2,00,000 - source of fund introduced by this partner is not explained, and addition made u/s.68 of the Act is therefore upheld - The addition u/s 68 of the Act treating capital introduction as unexplained is therefore sustained to the extent of ₹ 2,00,000/- only - CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee and the Remand Report received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing ground:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ld. CIT(A), Surat has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,00,0000/- out of the addition of ₹ 12,00,000/- made on account of unexplained capital introduced by the partners of the firm. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusing the accounts of the Assessee, A.O noticed that there was an addition to the extent of ₹ 22 lacs to the partners capital account. ( the details of which are listed at page 3 of the assessment order). The Assessee was asked to prove the identity, capacity of the person and the genuineness of the transactions. Assessee submitted the explanation but the same was not found satisfactory by the A.O. A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Jitendrabhai Hanslia and Shri Kishorbhai A. Hansalia, the reason given by the A.O is that they had not filed I.T. returns and no bank statements have been produced. Again at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that bank statement was not relevant as introduction of capital has been in cash. The appellant had explained with documentary evidences the source of introduction of capital which has not been disproved by the A.O. Capital introduced by these persons is therefore held as explained. As regards, Shri Hiteshbhai D, Patel the A.O. has accepted that copy of I.T. returns and bank statement had been provided. He does not mention any discrepancy in this regard except that this partner received monthly salary of ₹ 9,000/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in support of this claim is that Sliri Maganlal Jhaviya is an agriculturist holding 3 acres of land. No other sources of income on fund has been shown as available to him for introduction. In my opinion 3 acres of land, however, fertile will not be able to generate income leave alone any savings so as to enable this person to introduce capital of ₹ 2,00,000/-. Therefore, in my opinion, source of fund introduced by this partner is not explained, and addition made u/s.68 of the Act is therefore upheld to this extent. The addition u/s.68 of the Act treating capital introduction as unexplained is therefore sustained to the extent of ₹ 2,00,000/- only. The appellant gets relief of ₹ 10,00,000/-. This ground is partly allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
