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>Revenue's appeal dismissed as assessee validly explained investment source and discharged burden of proof</h1> <h3>The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 43 (1) Delhi Versus Hart Travels and Real Estate Solutions</h3> The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 43 (1) Delhi Versus Hart Travels and Real Estate Solutions - TMI Issues:Appeal against deletion of addition of unexplained investment in LLP partnership firm for A.Y 2018-19.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,92,82,500 on account of unexplained investment in a LLP partnership firm. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to establish the known source of income for the investment.2. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition, stating that the funds were sourced through secured/unsecured loans. The Revenue argued that the explanation provided for the funds from certain partners did not match the balance sheet details, questioning the creditworthiness of the partners.3. The Tribunal examined the creditworthiness of the partners and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It noted that the loans were sourced through banking channels and that the partners had substantial surplus funds and sources to advance loans. The Tribunal emphasized that if the payer's identity is established and transactions are genuine, the amount should not be added to the firm's income.4. The Tribunal referenced various court decisions to support its decision, including cases like Kesharwani Sheetalya Sahson Vs. DCIT and CIT Vs. Metachem Industries. It highlighted that the Assessing Officer should have considered discrepancies in personal affairs separately and not added the amount to the firm's income without valid reasoning.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the onus on the assessee to explain the investment was discharged. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of valid explanations for investments and distinguishing between individual and firm income.6. The judgment was pronounced on 11.09.2024, dismissing the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 3543/DEL/2023.
TaxTMI 