9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepted having made deposit in the assessee's firm in their capital account, no addition could be made against the assessee firm of the aforesaid amount. Since both the partners are assessed to tax separately, therefore, these amounts may be considered in their individual cases. The impugned addition in the hands of the assessee firm is, therefore, wholly unjustified. The judgements relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings on examination of the bank statement, directed the assessee to explain an amount of ₹ 1,96,000/- deposited in cash by Shri Shyam Sunder, Partner and further an amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- was deposited by Shri Mohinder Pal, Partner in cash on 13.06.2007. The assessee submitted that these partners deposited their personal amount which belongs to their father and mother. The Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parents of the partners are only self serving and amount deposited have not been supported by any evidence therefore, addition was confirmed and appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions, I am of the view addition is wholly unjustified. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shyam Sunder and Shri Mohinder Pal in the books of account of the assessee firm which shows that the amount in question have been contributed by both the partners in assessee's firm which have been taken in their respective capital accounts. In the case of Shri Mohinder Pal, ₹ 1,50,000/- was even deposited through banking channel. Both the partners are assessed to tax separately. The ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
