9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... introducing the capital by way of cash. Thirdly, it was shown that the partners had taken loan of Bajaj Finserv Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 4.5 crores, out of which Rs. 4 crores was introduced in the firm by way of capital. ITAT further endorsed the findings of the Appellate Commissioner to note that the partners were assessed to tax and therefore accounts were audited. All these particulars were not doubted even by AO at the time of assessment proceedings, it was observed. The concurrent findings are reasonable and properly arrived at. They are in the nature of findings of facts required to be upheld. No substantial question of law. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 263 of 2023 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2023 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOUR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made. Thereafter, the appeal came to be preferred by the revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which by order dated 19.10.2022 dismissed the appeal, which came to be impugned in the present proceedings. 3.1 The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is against the law and the facts on record. The appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law in the appeal, (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(A) s order in respect of deleting the addition of Rs.4,33,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961? 4. Number of contentions were raised by learned advocate for the appellant revenue. He submitted that source of cash capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the Appellate Commissioner observing that the assessee had explained the partners source. The Tribunal observed, It is pertinent to note that the assessee has explained each and every partner s sources of cash and the same was not properly verified by the Assessing Officers at the time of assessment proceedings. In fact, the Assessing Officer has simply relied upon the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kishorrilal Santoshilal reported in 216 ITR 09 (Raj.) and treated the said cash credit as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without taking any cognizance of evidence produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) has rightly held that the two partners in turn haven taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
