TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules on capital contributions, upholds decision on unexplained credits</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus KEWAL KRISHAN & PARTNERS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus KEWAL KRISHAN & PARTNERS - TMI Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against addition of Rs. 8,50,000 u/s 68 of the Act by AO, deletion of addition by Tribunal, failure to prove genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of creditors, treatment of capital contributions in the hands of individual partners.Summary:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the addition of Rs. 8,50,000 under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, which was deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that capital contributions made by partners before the business commencement cannot be treated as cash credit in the hands of the assessee.2. The assessment for the assessment year 1990-91 was initially made by the AO, adding Rs. 8,50,000 as unexplained cash credit in the names of partners of the firm. This addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) but set aside by the Tribunal for fresh assessment based on evidence.3. The AO maintained the income assessment in the fresh order, which was again confirmed by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Revenue contended that the onus to prove genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of creditors was not discharged.4. The Tribunal held that capital contributions made by partners before business commencement should be considered in the hands of individual partners, not the assessee. The partners confirmed their capital contributions, and it was their responsibility to explain the source of deposits.5. The Court concluded that unexplained credits should be added to the income of the partners under section 69, not under section 68 of the Act. It was determined that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order for the Court's consideration.6. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 