TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12/2011 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-2011. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal partly. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while observing in the appellate order that ''if the money would have been collected from the five individual partners out of their own resources then the profit arising from the sale would have to be taxed in their individual hands in not the hand of the firm. It is a fact that the Assessing Officer has assessed the income on sale pf the land in the hands of the firm where the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9 Lacs. But the assessee did not make any submission in response to the notice. 2.3 The AO further noticed that above details of Rs. 45 lacs is appearing on page no. 145 of diary seized vide annexure A-I from the residence of Shri Bhagwan K ajara another partner of the Uma shakti corporation. 2.4 Shri Bhagwan K ajara vide his submission dated 17-10-2011 stated that the noting on page 145 of the diary seized in annexure A-I pertains to the land at survey no. 1004, kalol of the samarpan project of Shree Krishna corporation. 2.5 The relevant entries as recorded by the AO are detailed as under: Date Particulars Amount(Rs) 11-09-09 Received from partner Vikasbhai Brijeshbhaim Deepakbhai USC K 2100000 09-10-09 Received from Partn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the total profit of Rs. 31 lacs was offered to tax by the USC in the return of income for AY 2010-11. 3.2 In view of the above, the assessee submitted that the investment of Rs. 9 lacs by the partners was appropriated from the extra collection of the firm M/s Uma shakti corporation. The funds for the samparpan project were deployed by the firm M/s Uma shakti corporation. The names of the partners were noted for memories. The firm offered Rs. 109 lacs as profit from the extra collection. Therefore the payments are not unexplained. 4. However, Ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee found that USC invested in the purchase of land for samarpan project amounting to Rs. 45 lacs and after that the land was sold to S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot sharing the profit equally. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR before us at the outset submitted that the impugned issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the order of this tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhagwan bhai Karmanbhai Ajara in ITA 1373/AHD/2013 vide order dated 12-04-2017. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR before us submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee has no bearing on the income tax proceedings. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee stands covered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of equal contribution by each of the five persons mentioned by Shri Vikas Patel is also not acceptable since the profit on the said land deal has been offered in USCKP, wherein there are six partners. It is not possible to believe that five persons would invest in a land in the individual capacity but the profit on such land deal would be shared by six persons. We are, therefore, of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of seized records, investment in "Samarpan Scheme" was made by USCKP from the funds receivecd from its members and therefore, the impugned addition is uncalled for in the assessee's hands. In the result, no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was a fact that the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- have been contributed by five partners @ Rs. 9,00,000/- each from their own sources then there would have been no occasion to offer the profit in the hands of the firm where there were six partners. This is to say that if five persons had contributed towards cost of lands then there would have been no reason for them to share the profit from the transactions with the sixth person i.e. Shri Kamalbhai Jayantibhai Patel who had not contributed any capital. It is also to be noted that the profit sharing ratio of all the partners in the firm is not equal. If the five persons had contributed Rs. 9,00,000/- each then there would be no occasion to not share the profits from the transaction equally. Thus....