9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no valid and lawful jurisdiction was at all acquired, therefore, all consequential and resultants action are without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, bad in law and bad in facts. The impugned orders deserve to be quashed and cancelled. 2. Without prejudice to the legal grounds No.1 above, and in the alternative and as abundant and precautionary measure, the ld Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in (i) making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the name of Shri C.P. Matur and Rs. 4,30,000/- in the name of Shri L.C. Mathur, invoking section 68 of the Act, being admitted investments of capital by the partners of the firm. (ii) Making and sustaining addition of Rs. 1,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the Act in short ]. 5. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the sole explanation of the creditors regarding the source, being the savings had not been established on the basis of any material evidence but heavily reliance had been placed upon the presumptions and traditions prevailing in the society. He also observed that merely filing of confirmatory letter from the creditor without further establishing the availability of funds at the time the sum was advanced to the assessee did not establish the capacity of the creditor or genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Now, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be added in the hands of the partners only and not in the hands of assessee firm. In any case, such capital contributions entered into the books of the accounts of the assessee firm prior to the commencement of the business cannot be treated to be the income of the assessee firm. In considered opinion of this Court, such unexplained credits may be added to the income of the partners concerned in terms of section 69 and not u/s 68 of the Act of 1961 . 9. In the present case also, since the amount deposited was from the partners, therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, at the most the impugned amount could have been added in the hands of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oni Hospital is famous hospital in Jaipur. 12. The Assessing Officer after considering the above explanation observed that the assessee had filed necessary documentary evidence in the form of bank certificate dated 26.3.2002 from the Canara Bank regarding deposit of cheque given to the assessee by Dr. S.C. Soni but the assessee had not filed any confirmation or any evidence in support of the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of Dr. S.C. Soni. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 1 lac was made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 13. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the copy of the cheque and the certificate from the Canara Bank merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
