9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation of the assessee in the light of the order of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vivek Jolly (2012 (11) TMI 1216 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) explanation of the assessee is accepted that creditor has withdrawn the amount of ₹ 2 lacs and ₹ 5 lacs in February,2006 which were available to her for making re-deposit in the same bank account. The Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record to prove that the amounts so withdrawn by the creditor in February,2006 have been utilized or spent anywhere else. Therefore, explanation of the assessee is accepted that the creditor has credit worthiness to advance a sum of ₹ 5,01,750/- to the assessee. Therefore, no addition can be made of this amount treating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee firm and accordingly, treated the capital contribution by the partners as unexplained and made addition of ₹ 2.60 lacs. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition because source of the same was not explained. 5. After considering rival submissions, I am of the view issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Mohinder Pal Sham Sunder Vs ITO in ITA 806/2016 for assessment year 2008-09 dated 14.09.2016 in which following the decisions of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court, the identical addition have been deleted. The findings in para 2 to 8 of this order are reproduced as under : 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is wholly unjustified. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka 208 CTR 459 in which it was held as under : Once a partner of the firm has accepted having advanced amount to the firm, no addition could be made in the hands of firm under s. 68 . 5. He has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V Metal Metals of India 208 CTR 457 in which it was held as under : Partner having admitted that he has made the impugned deposit with the assessee firm out of the amount received as gift, it is the partner and not the firm who is liable to be taxed by treating the said amount as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty to take up this issue in the individual cases of the partners in accordance with law, if so advised. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. Following the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mohinder Pal Shyam Sunder (supra), I set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 2,60,000/- in the hands of the assessee firm. However, revenue is at liberty to take up this issue in the individual cases of the partners in accordance with law, if so advised. 7. In the result, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 8. On ground No. 4, assessee challenged the upholding of addition of ₹ 5 lacs being unsecured loan raised by the firm from Smt. Anu Anand. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that in assessment year under appeal, assessee has advanced a sum of ₹ 15,03,500/- to the assessee in three instalments i.e. on 01.04.2006 ₹ 5 lacs, on 16.05.2006 ₹ 5,01,750/- and on 05.08.2006 ₹ 5,01,750/-. The Assessing Officer did not make any addition of the first two loans taken from Smt. Anu Anand in the assessment order. Therefore, credit worthiness of the creditor was not disputed by the Assessing Officer with regard to substantial amount advanced by her in assessment year under appeal. Phh12 is acknowledgement of filing of her Income Tax Return in assessment year under appeal in which she has shown total income of ₹ 1,83,447/-, copy of the bank account is filed at page 14 of the Paper Book to sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.9.2007 Rs.5 lacs 14.9.2007 Rs.5 lacs 18.9.2007 Rs.5 lacs 9. The assessee claimed to have withdrawn cash from its bank account for the purpose of utilizing the same in the investment in immovable property and as the transaction did not go through, part of the cash withdrawn was redeposited in the bank account and balance was utilized for household purpose. Admittedly, the assessee had withdrawn cash from its bank account which in turn was redeposited in the bank after a gap of few months. We do not find any merit in the order of the authorities below in treating the said redeposit of cash in the bank account as income under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
