2018 (1) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st the firm. The controversy involved in the present case, therefore, stands squarely covered by the decision of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries [2005 (7) TMI 601 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held no addition can be made with regard to the partner’s capital introduction in the hands of the partnership firm and dismissed the appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee
MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A. S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Appellant : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the appellantrevenue has called in question the order dated 13.2.2017 made by the Income Tax Appellat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uced by Mr. Kantilal Jayramdas Thakkar and show cause as to why such sum should not be treated as cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished the contra confirmation of the said partner who was assessed to tax at Ward-2 of Palanpur B.K. Range and was filing the return of income regularly. Copy of acknowledgement receipt of ITR filed by Mr. Kantilal Jayramdas Thakkar was also furnished along with the audit report of the said financial year to prove that the assessee firm had received the fund from its partner Shri Kantilal Jayramdas Thakkar, who had also shown in his books of accounts that such amount had been invested by him. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that the credit wo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ard to the source of the capital introduced in the firm and the concerned partner had confirmed such contribution, the assessee had duly discharged the onus cast upon it. Thereafter, if the Assessing Officer was not convinced about the creditworthiness of the partner who had made the capital contribution, the inquiry had to be made at the end of the partner and not against the firm. The controversy involved in the present case, therefore, stands squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries, rendered on 6.7.2005 in Income Tax Reference No.241 of 1993. 9. In the above view of the matter, when the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X