TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditions of Rs. 1,60,000/- being capital contribution by Shri Umesh Anand, partner of the firm and addition of Rs. 1 lac being capital contribution by Shri Surinder Sapra, partner of the firm. 4(i) Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee is a firm, derives income from manufacturing of steel metal components and submersible pumps. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the source of introduction of capital by partners. The Assessing Officer noted that one of the partner Shri Umesh Anand introduced capital of Rs. 1.60 lacs and another partner Shri Surinder Sapra introduced Rs. 1 lac. These were cash investments. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding source of capital intr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sits in their respective capital accounts which have been received by them from their father and mother, therefore, addition in the hands of the assessee firm is unjustified. 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that there is no dispute regarding amount of Rs. 3,46,000/- deposited in the bank account of the assessee firm and same had been made by Shri Shyam Sunder and Shri Mohinder Pal who were also partners of the assessee firm. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, noted that the affidavits of the parents of the partners are only self serving and amount deposited have not been supported by any evidence therefore, addition was confirmed and appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions, I am of the view ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee firm have accepted having made deposit in the assessee's firm in their capital account, no addition could be made against the assessee firm of the aforesaid amount. Since both the partners are assessed to tax separately, therefore, these amounts may be considered in their individual cases. The impugned addition in the hands of the assessee firm is, therefore, wholly unjustified. The judgements relied upon by ld. counsel for the assessee above squarely support the case of the assessee that addition is wholly unjustified in the hands of the assessee firm. 7. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of Rs. 3,46,000/- in the hands of the assessee firm. The revenue is at liber....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2006. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the contention of the assessee of withdrawing the amount in February,2006 because purpose of withdrawal was not explained and it could not be said that the amount remained with her for six months. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, treated the source of loan of Rs. 5 lacs as unexplained and made addition of Rs. 5 lacs. The ld. CIT(Appeals) on the same reasoning, confirmed the addition because credit worthiness of the creditor was not established. 9. After considering rival submissions, I am of the view that addition is wholly unjustified. The assessee has filed ledger account of Smt. Anu Anand at page 13 of the Paper Book which shows that in assessment year under appeal, assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee was accepted. The findings in this order in paras 7 to 10 are reproduced as under : "7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts of the present case the assessee had made cash withdrawals of Rs. 23 lacs on various dates out of its saving account with ABN Amro Bank as under: 24.4.2007 Rs.8 lacs 7.7.2007 Rs.5 lacs 7.7.2007 Rs.1 lac Total Rs.23 lacs. 8. The assessee thereafter deposited cash in its bank account as under: 13.9.2007 Rs.5 lacs 14.9.2007 Rs.5 lacs 18.9.2007 Rs.5 lacs 9. The assessee claimed to have withdrawn cash from its bank account for the purpose of utilizing the same in the investment in immovable property and as the transactio....