9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the genuineness of the transactions. Here, the creditors, as pointed out by the assessee firm, were the three partners. The three partners had also produced credible material to show their source of income for the specific advances made to the firm. If at all the source of the donor/ creditor is doubted, then there could be an assessment made only on that donor or creditor and not on the firm, who has proved the identity and creditworthiness of their creditor. To that end is the various decisions placed on record by the learned Amicus Curiae. We agree with the learned Amicus Curiae that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal and hence we reject the above appeal.- Decided in favour of assessee - ITA. No. 286 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the persons who were their source. All the three partners admitted that they had advanced amounts to the firm. As to their source they stated that they received the amounts from another. It is the creditworthiness of that other person that the assessing officer doubted. 4. To advance the above proposition, Revenue would rely on M.A. Unneeri Kutty v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [(1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker)]. The Tribunal had placed much reliance on the fact that it was the first year of business, which, according to the learned Counsel, is irrelevant. The learned Counsel would rely on Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Bhadra Enterprises [(1997) 228 ITR 645 (Ker)] , wherein a similar circumstance of unexplained credits having been revealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Amicus Curiae would rely on Tolaram Daga v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam [(1996) 49 ITR 632] , Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Metal Metals of India [(2007) 208 CTR Reports 457] , Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka [(2007) 208 CTR Reports 459] and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [(1983) 141 ITR 706 to buttress her contentions. 7. We notice from the order of the Assessing Officer that the alleged unexplained credit was explained by the assessee, pointing out the three partners, who admitted to have advanced the said credits. 8. Sri.K.J. Jayaprakash, one of the partners, was said to have advanced an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs. Sri.K.J. Jayaprakash filed a statement admittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out by the assessee firm. 10. Again, ₹ 4,45,000/- was said to have been advanced by yet another partner by name Sri.P.N. Sahadevan. Sri.P.N. Sahadevan contended that he had received it from his nephew one Sri.V. Sadasivan. Sri.P.N. Sahadevan had also produced a confirmation letter from Sadasivan, as to the latter having taken a loan of ₹ 4,45,000/- from him. A copy of the Demand Draft was also produced before the Officer. The Assessing Officer found that the confirmation was only in respect of the amounts due to P.N. Sahadevan and there was no confirmation as to Sadasivan having paid back the amounts. We notice from the order of the Tribunal that the assessee had a specific contention that the details were explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
