9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Department under s. 132A of the IT Act, 1961. During the course of action under s. 132A, the said Shri R.P. Patel, the carrier of the said cash had stated that on 17th April, 1989, at Junagadh, he was given the suitcase and a bag containing the said cash by Shri Babubhai A. Patel, the manager of the assessee-firm to be delivered to Bhavnagar office. Shri Babubhai Patel, manager of the assessee-firm had stated that the said cash belonged to the partners of the assessee-firm. On examination the partner Shri Bhogilal P. Patel and Shri Kantilal K. Patel stated that the cash belonged to the assessee-firm. The assessee-firm had offered the said cash of Rs. 7,50,000 for taxation for the asst. yr. 1989-90. However, the AO has mentioned that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the asst. yr. 1990-91." 3. Shri Ramesh Chander, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate and apply the provisions contained in s. 69A of the Act in relation to taxability of the unexplained cash of Rs. 7,50,000 seized on 18th April, 1989, which fell in previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1989-90 and based his finding on entirely irrelevant consideration that the unexplained cash was in possession of the assessee prior to 1st April, 1989, and thus totally disregarded the legal position contained in s. 69A of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that on this issue the finding of the AO be restored back. 4. Shri S.N. Soparkar, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." From the perusal of the section as reproduced supra it is pertinent to note from the underlined portion of the said section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 6,39,109 made under s. 68 by the AO in the case of the assessee-firm. The assessee-firm started its business in the asst. yr. 1989-90 w.e.f. 8th July, 1988. There are 8 partners in the firm out of which only 14 partners introduced capital on the following dates: Name of partner Date Amount Rs. Shri Kantilal K. Patel 8-7-1988 2,85,000 Shri Prahlad M. Patel 29-9-1988 50,000 Shri Somabhai R. Patel 3-10-1988 40,000 Shri Bhogilal P. Patel 24-1-1989 51,000 4,26,000 The other four partners did not introduce any capital. Whereas Shri Kantilal K. Patel introduced capital in cash; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are not properly explained the same can be added under s. 68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. In support of this argument be relied upon the following decisions: (1) Hardwarmal Onkarmal vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 779 (Pat); (2) CIT vs Kapur Bros.. (1979) 10 CTR (All) 280 : (1979) 118 ITR 741 (All); (3) Anupam Udyog vs. CIT (1983) 35 CTR (Pat) 12 : (1983) 142 ITR 133 (Pat); and (4) Anand Ram Raitani vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (Gau) 235 : (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau) 9. Shri S.N. Soparkar, the learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the action of the learned CIT(A) is justified in view of the decision Narayan Das Kedarnath vs. CIT (1957) 22 ITR 18 (Bom), (1980) 37 CTR (Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
