TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....M.: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 11.07.2008. 2. The only issued raised by the Revenue in this appeal relates to the deletion of the addition made by the A.O. amounting to ₹ 87,00,000/-against capital contribution made by the partners as income of the firm. 3. The brief facts are that the A.O. noted that during the year the partners had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Before us, the ld. D.R. vehemently contend that the A.O. asked the assessee to produce each of the partners so that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could be approved. The onus is on the assessee to prove the cash credit. The CIT(A) has accepted the explanation of the assessee without bringing any evidence on record about the sources of the investment. The A.O. has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered view that the Tribunal has fallen into serious error. The Tribunal should have taken note of the fact that all the deposits aggregating to ₹ 1,43,000/- represented the capital contribution of the partners in the firm and they were made before the firm started its business. It was for the partners to explain the source of the deposits and if they failed to discharge the onus, then suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee-firm. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in IT. Ref. No.152 of 1990 - India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All), and then this Court held that the onus was on the partners to explain the source of the deposits made on the very first day when they entered into partnership and if they failed, the amount could have been added in their hands only and no....