9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as ld. CIT(A), the assessee categorically contended that in bank account of proprietorship, the PAN of erstwhile partnership firm was inadvertently migrated at the time of data migration. The assessee in the statement of fact also categorically contended that such PAN of firm was wrongly mentioned by its banker. We find that banker of assessee has given certified that while migrating the data of PAN was inadvertently mentioned as AAEFV7806M instead of PAN of proprietary concern of Mr. Dilipbhai Vasantlal Sheth. We find that such evidence was furnished by assessee before Ld.CIT(A). No verification of fact was conducted by Ld.CIT(A) either of their own or through Assessing Officer. On perusal of books of account of proprietary concern of Dilipbhai Vasantlal Sheth, we find that such bank account was duly disclosed in the audit report and all the transactions are considered by while filing return of income in the proprietary concern. AO was not justified in making addition without verification of all facts. This ground of assessee s appeal is allowed. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Ashish P Bhoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal during the course of appeal proceedings. 2. Brief facts are that assessee is a partnership firm and no return of income was filed for the assessment year under consideration 2011-12 The Assessing Officer was having information by way of ITD/ITA data that assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 1.27 crores in its bank account with Bank of Maharashtra, Surat. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the assessee for seeking clarification about the deposits in the said bank account. The assessing officer recorded that no response was made by assessee. The Assessing Officer after recording reasons that income of assessee has escaped assessment within scope of Section 147 of the Act issued notice under section 148 was on 27.03.2018. Dilipbhai Vasantial Seth, the erstwhile partner of assessee firm filed reply dated 17.04.2018 and contended that firm has already dissolved with effect from 01.04.2008. Hence, no return of income is required to be filed for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee requested for reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer noted that reasons recorded was supplied. The assessee was asked to submit source of cash deposits and copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee held that cash deposits of Rs. 1.27 crores in his regular business transaction in the proprietary concern is not acceptable. The Assessing Officer treated the said transaction in the name of firm by holding that Bank Authority also confirmed that the said account was in the name of M/s Vasant Traders having PAN of assessee-firm. The Assessing Officer on the basis of such fact treated the amount of Rs. 1.27 crores as unexplained cash credit while passing assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21.12.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the addition made in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The case of assessee migrated before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed brief statement of fact along with Form-35. In the statement of fact, assessee submitted that partnership firm was dissolved with effect from 01.04.2008 and no business activities were conducted since then. The assessee-firm was not having any income liable to tax and assessee-firm had not filed any return of income for the relevant assessment year. During the year under consideration, as per AIR and CIB information on ITD application available with the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er aggrieved, the assessee-firm has filed present appeal before the Tribunal through its erstwhile partner. 6. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits assessee was a partnership firm, which was dissolved with effect from 01.06.2008 and there were no business activities since then. Thus, no return of income for assessment year 2011-12 was filed. During assessment, assessee (ex-partner) explained all the facts before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the explanation of assessee due to similarity in the name of proprietorship, the fact remained same that partnership firm dissolved with effect from 01.04.2008. The assessee also filed copy of dissolution deed, copy of original dissolution was not traced out due to laps of period for more than 10 years. The Assessing Officer insisted for filing original dissolution deed, which was not traced. The Assessing Officer simply made the addition by holding that credit in bank account No.20102501515 as unexplained on the ground that original dissolution deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the partnership firm stand closed on 01.04.2008. The ex-partner of assessee-firm filed his affidavit and contended that original dissolution deed in not traceable as more than 10 years have passed. The Assessing Officer insisted for producing original dissolution deed. In the absence of dissolution deed, the Assessing Officer treated the transaction in the bank account as unexplained cash credit. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer by taking view that source of deposits in the bank account is unexplained as the assessee ailed to discharge his onus to explain the nature and source. We find that before Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A), the assessee categorically contended that in bank account of proprietorship, the PAN of erstwhile partnership firm was inadvertently migrated at the time of data migration. The assessee in the statement of fact also categorically contended that such PAN of firm was wrongly mentioned by its banker. We find that banker of assessee has given certified that while migrating the data of PAN was inadvertently mentioned as AAEFV7806M instead of PAN of proprietary concern of Mr. Dilipbhai Vasantlal Sheth. We find that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
